Home - List All Discussions

Religion and abortion

What impact does religion (Christianity in particular) have on abortion?

by: Hereforareason

The religion debate is always a hot one, especially when mixed in with abortion. So what impact does religion have on abortion?
CP has stated that the majority of women who get abortions are Christians. I would like to ask where you found that statistic. I have seen statistics on ages and single vs married, but not that statistic.
We will need a definition of "Christians" to proceed. CP I am sure you have a definition since it seems to be a subject you are quite passionate on. Would you please provide us with a definition?
What role has a religion played in your life to determine whether or not abortion is right or wrong?
What affect does it have on you if people seem to be going against their religion in this matter? Does it affect your view on abortion? Does it affect your view of that religion?

reply from: B0zo

"Majority" would mean more than half.
I would like to see those statistics too.
But isn't it true most people in the US identify in some way with Christianity?
And to pick up on the marriage issue--would most of those Christians who aborted be unmarried?

reply from: B0zo

Religion has confirmed what my common sense told me.
If people don't practice their fiath, it's no more the fault of the religion, than it's the fault of food if a man starves because he refuses to eat.
I don't fault the religion because someone decides not to practice it.

reply from: BossMomma

Religion has nothing to do with abortion, plenty of people from all religions abort. One can go to church and not know God. One has to know and trust in Christ, only then will the child be safe. IMHO, religion has nothing to do with God, God exists in the heart.

reply from: CP

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

"Christian" obviously means different things to different people, so I think we must accept that those who identify themselves as Christians, claiming to believe the basic tenets, are Christian. I'm not the one who attempts to exclude some of these based on personal interpretations.
You all read my thoughts on the other thread. Does anyone else think the sort of vehement condemnations we sometimes see might influence Christian women to abort?

reply from: CP

Let's don't do this again here. Do we really have to argue over who is and is not a "Christian?" It seems to me that this is an attempt to avoid addressing the issue by denying that the problem exists.

reply from: B0zo

The scriptures are all about God. The church service is about God and our relationship with him. The Holy Mass is about the Sacrifice of Jesus and our sharing in that.
All the comandments and teachings in most religions claim God as their origin, and God as the object of our heart and mind, and enternal life with God as our ultimate happiness.
So I don't get that relgion has "nothing" to do with God. It has everything to do with God. Religion is about the relationship with God and our fellow man, and religion is OF God.
It's not just "me and Jesus."

reply from: CP

Religion has confirmed what my common sense told me.
If people don't practice their fiath, it's no more the fault of the religion, than it's the fault of food if a man starves because he refuses to eat.
I don't fault the religion because someone decides not to practice it.
Let me ask you this....Is it possible for a woman who is "practicing her faith" to go out and have a sexual affair, even just once, outside of marriage, a "sinful" affair?

reply from: BossMomma

The scriptures are all about God. The church service is about God and our relationship with him. The Holy Mass is about the Sacrifice of Jesus and our sharing in that.
All the comandments and teachings in most religions claim God as their origin, and God as the object of our heart and mind, and enternal life with God as our ultimate happiness.
So I don't get that relgion has "nothing" to do with God. It has everything to do with God. Religion is about the relationship with God and our fellow man, and religion is OF God.
It's not just "me and Jesus."
It is about "me and Jesus" that's exactly what it's about. God doesn't need a mouth piece, he has a voice and can speak for himself. Your scriptures and books are but man's interpretation, I prefer speaking to Him directly.

reply from: B0zo

Let's don't do this again here. Do we really have to argue over who is and is not a "Christian?" It seems to me that this is an attempt to avoid addressing the issue by denying that the problem exists.
Do what again?
I answered the lady's question.
If a religion says "thou shalt not abort" and explains the injustice of it and why, and if the person of that faith aborts anyway, I do not blame the relgion for the believer's disobedience.
I have not denied that that person could still be a Christian.

reply from: B0zo

How do you know it's a "him"?
Do you believe in Jesus? If so, how do you know there is a Jesus?

reply from: B0zo

Hell yes. I've said so a hundred times on this forum.
She could also go and have an abortion.
What I had been previously referring to was figures that are skewed because of those who abandoned their faith but still identified with it. There are many who call themelves Christians who don't practice their faith at all, but just identify with it because of a childhood church affiliation. I don't think it's fair to include those people.

reply from: BossMomma

How do you know it's a "him"?
Do you believe in Jesus? If so, how do you know there is a Jesus?
That's just it, without faith, no one knows for sure. The bible could all be made up, Jesus could be made up, Hell could be made up. To me God is a feeling, that gut feeling that tells me what is right and what is wrong. The only time my life has gone awry due to my choices is when I ignored that feeling for my own personal desires.

reply from: B0zo

I cannot speak for non Catholic denominations, so can only give you my perspective as a Catholic.
I have never seen "vehement condemnations."

reply from: B0zo

I agree that we each have a conscience which is of God, but a fair and objective study of relgion could lead you to see whether or not the Gospels are true, and from there, what is the Church and relgion the Gospels point to.

reply from: CP

I'm sorry, I assumed you meant that if they "don't practice their faith" then they are not Christians. I thought the idea was to avoid addressing the problem of so many Christian abortions by denying that women who abort are Christians.
So, do you agree that the constant vehement condemnations of particular "sins" such as extramarital/premarital affairs could encourage Christians to commit "graver" sins like abortion in order to hide their guilt/shame?

reply from: B0zo

That's possible, but not the fault of the religion that the person chose to commit an even greater disobedience to God and their faith.
But...as I said previously, I've never seen "vehement condemnations." The Catholics I know and associate with are very understanding about unplanned pregnancies, especially since many have been in the same boat or have daughters or other relatives in that situation. We know our own weaknesses and sins too well, so are not at all surprised about the weaknesses and sins of others.
The pregnant unmarried women are treated with love and respect.

reply from: CP

Hell yes. I've said so a hundred times on this forum.
She could also go and have an abortion.
What I had been previously referring to was figures that are skewed because of those who abandoned their faith but still identified with it. There are many who call themelves Christians who don't practice their faith at all, but just identify with it because of a childhood church affiliation. I don't think it's fair to include those people.
Having been raised a Christian myself, and knowing many others like myself who have, in fact, rejected that religion, I must say that it would be rare indeed for such a person to continue to identify as a Christian.
If you intend to argue that a significant number of women who identify themselves as Christians but still abort are not actually Christians, then perhaps you should define "Christian."
Or are you saying they are Christians, but no longer "practicing?"
Frankly, I wish we could just get to the meat, but I'll dance if I must...

reply from: CP

I cannot speak for non Catholic denominations, so can only give you my perspective as a Catholic.
I have never seen "vehement condemnations."
You read this forum, don't you? Do you not consider some of the views expressed on the issue of premarital sex to be "vehement condemnations?"
Do you not wish to answer the question?

reply from: CP

That's possible, but not the fault of the religion that the person chose to commit an even greater disobedience to God and their faith.
But...as I said previously, I've never seen "vehement condemnations." The Catholics I know and associate with are very understanding about unplanned pregnancies, especially since many have been in the same boat or have daughters or other relatives in that situation. We know our own weaknesses and sins too well, so are not at all surprised about the weaknesses and sins of others.
The pregnant unmarried women are treated with love and respect.
So why do you think so many abort then?

reply from: B0zo

For the sake of argument, I accept the figures.
So is it your contention Chritianity causes the abortions?
By making sex outside of marriage a sin, the ashamed Chrisitian does not want anyone to see the evidence of her fall from grace, so she kills her child to spare herself embarrassment?
It could be in some cases, but I don't think so in most.
But would your solution be to change religion so that there is no such thing as sexual sin, and hence, no more abortions because of shame?
I think the figures also need to be looked at from the perspective of poverty forcing the situation.

reply from: B0zo

That's possible, but not the fault of the religion that the person chose to commit an even greater disobedience to God and their faith.
But...as I said previously, I've never seen "vehement condemnations." The Catholics I know and associate with are very understanding about unplanned pregnancies, especially since many have been in the same boat or have daughters or other relatives in that situation. We know our own weaknesses and sins too well, so are not at all surprised about the weaknesses and sins of others.
The pregnant unmarried women are treated with love and respect.
So why do you think so many abort then?
Probably because of poverty, selfishness, embarrassment, not wanting to ruin their chance to go to college, not thinking clearly during a time of crisis, pressure from a boyfrient or husband--it could be a multitude of reasons. I just don't see "vehement condemnation" as the motivating factor.
Why do you suppose the vast majority do not abort? Can we give the religion credit for those cases?

reply from: B0zo

I cannot speak for non Catholic denominations, so can only give you my perspective as a Catholic.
I have never seen "vehement condemnations."
You read this forum, don't you? Do you not consider some of the views expressed on the issue of premarital sex to be "vehement condemnations?"
Do you not wish to answer the question?
It would truly be a crazy and cruel world if what is said in this forum is some kind of cross-section of reality.
Yes, here in this forum I have seen "vehement condemnations."

reply from: B0zo

I just want to make sure I am not misunderstanding you.
I was interpreting "vehement condemnation" to mean that this attitude extends to the pregnant woman.
Premarital and extramarital sex and any sexual sin is most definately "condemned" by our Church, as is stealing, lying, murder, etc., but that condemnation does not extend to the sinner, who always has recourse.

reply from: CP

Absolutely not. I do believe that some Christians encourage them, however. I'm not talking about a majority either, but, for example, the one who said "recreational sex" was for "the depraved" on another thread. Most Christians may be openly supportive of unwed mothers, and you seem to have a good and "Christlike" attitude about the sins of others, but you have to be aware of the self righteous types who are always poised to condemn. I have my theories, but I do not pretend to know why so many Christians abort. I do think something must be terribly wrong, and the only thing I can come up with is fear of condemnation.
I certainly understand that most women say they abort for financial reasons, and I stated as much in my discussion with Augustine. I don't blame Christianity, but there has to be more the churches can do. I know most churches will help people in need, but when it comes to members who become unwed mothers, perhaps they prefer abortion. I also know some churches kick you out for having premarital sex, for not "practicing the faith," and even if they don't, these women are often ashamed and do not want others to know.
I get that the churches can't condone it, but maybe they need to make sure the love is stronger than the condemnation? Unfortunately, I think it is the negative feelings that carry more weight.
I don't think it's so much the "making sex outside of marriage a sin" as it is the impression that some sins are not big deals, but the ones you commit are the really bad ones.
Do you really think me that unreasonable? I know that is not going to happen. I'm not sure what the solution is, but I have some ideas that I think are worth considering. I know Christians are much more vocal about some sins than others, and I understand the concept of gravity. I just don't think it helps to give the appearance that some sins make you a really bad person. Many Christians are very loving and considerate, and it may be that they could be instrumental in reigning in the ones who sting others more.

reply from: CP

Gee, the vast majority of atheists also never abort! I don't blame religion for abortion, and I credit the individuals for being morally upstanding. Of course, that is not to say that I think prochoicers are not "morally upstanding," generally speaking. I think the majority just honestly don't get it.
Sadly, I do not believe all Christians really live up to the concept of condemning the sin and not the sinner. I've been to just about every kind of church there is within the Christian faith, and I've heard vicious gossip, and things you wouldn't expect of Christians. I knew a girl who was publicly humiliated and formally "disfellowshipped" from her church, and have known of others. This girl kept her baby, and most of the church members were actually very sweet to her. All were to her face, but she knew how things worked there. She didn't have to go through it, but she really believed, and was devastated. She didn't even consider aborting, even though that would have spared her a lot of grief.
You see, they felt that some sins simply crossed the line. I guess it was the Catholic equivalent of excommunication.

reply from: B0zo

I see what you're saying now.
The sad thing is that the person who is like that is really the bigger sinner, by virtue of his pride and arrogance alone, but I've been there myself.

reply from: B0zo

That's very sad and very cruel.
But I haven't seen anything like that. Besides, it happens to the very best families who seem to be doing everything right. It happens often enough that I don't think many in our church would have the nerve to condemn someone, knowing that the same could happen in thier own family, if it has not already.
I would have to disagree that it's like excommunication, since in most cases it is private, and for the good of the person, and easily rectified.

reply from: CP

In church, it is one thing, but outside, it's another. There are prolifers who are "shacking up," living in sin I guess most Christians would say, and the constant condemnation of premarital sex is offensive to them. My point on the other thread was that there was no reason to keep putting down such "sinners" and attempting to blame a different view of conventional marriage for abortion. Augustine pulled up stats about abortions on single women, and I pointed out that this was not necessarily the root cause any more than the high rate of Christian abortions means Christianity can be blamed. The stats are relevant, and we should learn what we can from them. We should definitely address issues that could reduce the rate of abortion, but pretending the whole problem is lack of "Christian morals" is naive.
Christians do not have a monopoly on morality, nor are they ideal models. They are just like the rest of us. We all make mistakes, and we all go through a process of learning and maturation where our moral principles are formed.
I agree that financial concerns seems to be a primary culprit, so that is a good place for us to start in attempting to reduce the rate of abortion. There are other issues that need to be addressed as well, and I think sex ed and contraception are important ones. This is where I become most frustrated with a lot of Christians.

reply from: CP

I think these are the ones who might be more likely to have an abortion in order to avoid scandal, but of course, as you pointed out, the majority obviously do not.

reply from: Hereforareason

If a person is living in sin, then they are not following Christ and therefore are not Christians. "If you love me keep my commandments."
I believe that most of the "Christian" statistics you have in abortion are false Christians. It is possible for a Christian to stumble badly, but not stay in sin. It is also possible for them to be saved after falling in sin. Some sins seem greater to us, and there is a scale but the only thing we need to know and worry about is that ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. None will enter heaven apart from his Grace.
We need to live in grace and extend grace, but that does not mean that we smile upon those living in sin. God requires justice be carried out. I believe there is a time for something as public as church discipline. It needs to be done correctly but there is a place for it.
If a Christian has stumbled and the pregnancy is caused by sin, another sin will not fix the first one and they should know that.
That being said, I do not agree with CP's statement about Christianity relating to abortion being as irrelevant as premarital sex. Most abortions are performed on single women and it is because they do not feel ready. Finances definitely come into play. Emotions come into play. There are tons of reasons, but the facts are that she would not have been pregnant if she has not had sex before marriage. There is a reason that marriage was established. Does that mean that there can be no recreational sex? No that is not what it means, but it does mean that it should not be done before marriage. We could debate the issue if you wish but I think we will both agree that the girl should be helped and supported in her new role as mother. (Mother she is from conception)
"I think sex ed and contraception are important ones. This is where I become most frustrated with a lot of Christians. "
Sex ed is becoming more prevalent, so is the availability of contraception. The premarital sex rate is going up, the pregnancy rate is going up, and the abortion rate is going up. What are you wanting to accomplish here?
Amber

reply from: B0zo

So if someone is a Christian today, but falls into sin they are no longer Christians, but if they repent, they become Christians again?
A Christian that sins stops being a Christian, or only for a particular sin? And how long of a period of time before they stop being a Christian?
May I ask what denomination you belong to?

reply from: B0zo

Are you saying a woman who has a pregnancy out of wedlock should be reprimanded in front of the entire congregation?

reply from: CP

What, exactly, constitutes "living in sin?" I don't think I've ever met a Christian that was willing to assert that they are themselves free from sin. They all seem to admit that they continue to sin. Most basically argue that they are doing their best, and that is all God expects because nobody is perfect. Is that your view as well?
Because you are reluctant to admit that the rate is so high for Christians, or do not wish to address this problem? Or do you feel that a Christian who aborts must not be sincere in their faith?
Seriously, I see no valid basis for this belief. Frankly, I think some Christians deny that these post abortive women are Christians as a means of avoiding arguments against the charge that "premarital sex" causes abortions. If the fact that more single women abort than married women means marital status is the cause, then why wouldn't the fact that more Christian women abort lead us to draw the same conclusions regarding Christianity? Oh, right, if we deny they are Christians, the point simply goes away, right?
Wrong! The point is that correlation in no way implies causation! It is no more logical to assume premarital sex causes abortions than it is to assume Christianity does based solely on the stats!
But you assume a Christian (or "false Christian) who aborts must be "living in sin," and is therefore not a Christian at all in your view?
Are all who continue to sin "living in sin," or do some sins not count?
By whom? He who is without sin?
By "not ready," you mean they don't want children, pregnancy would be unwanted, right? And you understand that some married women feel the same way, don't you? So, would it be logical to assume that, while more single women abort, it is not their marital status, but the fact that they are "not ready" that encourages them to abort? Why do you suppose more single women are "not ready?" But wait, that has not been established, has it? We don't know that more single women are "not ready," only that more single women abort than married women...
It would seem to me that the reason more single women abort than married women must logically be that more single women experience unwanted pregnancies than married women. This is, of course, speculation on my part, but it seems a reasonable assumption.
So why would this be? It could be that married women who do not want children use birth control more effectively and/or consistently...There are more than one possibilities for sure.
If she did not have sex before marriage, that only means she could not have gotten pregnant before marriage. She could still have gotten pregnant, but just not until she was married. If she did not want children before she was married, do you think saying "I do" automatically changes that? Are you really telling me that if all the women who abort simply married before having sex, they would not abort at all? What makes you think that would reduce the rate of abortion rather than simply lowering the rate for single women, and raising the rate for married women?
Really? Why don't you tell me what that reason is? Was marriage "established" by Christianity? By God?
What is it that means it should not be done without what is essentially a permit? That "there is a reason marriage was established?" This is all very vague, and explains nothing as far as I can see. Am I not understanding what you're trying to say?
I would like to see a drastic reduction or complete elimination of unwanted pregnancies and an end to the perceived need for abortion. Comprehensive sex ed (including teaching the benefits of abstinence) combined with availability of contraceptives has been proven to be an effective means to this end. What is your proposed solution? Just tell people not to have sex before marriage? Even if everybody followed that advice (which they obviously will not...), Do I really have to bring up extramarital sex? Marriage can not prevent STDs or unwanted pregnancies! If only married people have sex, the only thing that will really change is that only married people will spread STDs, experience unwanted pregnancies, and seek abortions!
In the end, research shows that most women, whether married or single, Christian or not, abort because of financial reasons, not because they had premarital sex. Most people actually experience sex before marriage, but the majority never have abortions.

reply from: Hereforareason

Christians fall into sin, repent change their ways and continue to strive toward Christ-like living. They do not LIVE in sin, swim in it, continue in it for periods of time against their conscience. The grace given to us is not so cheap as to be able to throw it away and claim it again.
Does that fully answer your question?
I claim no denomination but believe that the bible is the inherent word of God. That is what I strive to follow.
Amber

reply from: B0zo

Christians can fall away from their faith for many years and then return. I'm not saying that's a good thing, but that it happens.
I understand your perspective somewhat, but don't agree with it.
How do you know the Bible is the Word of God?
And if you belong to no denomination, then what did you mean by this:
Do you go to a public place of worship which has a set of guidelines and principles or doctrine? Who would determine how this public discipline is meted out?

reply from: Hereforareason

Living in sin is being content to continue in those things which you have no doubt are displeasing to God. You can not accept the wondrous Grace he has given and then turn and disregard it to enjoy the pleasures of sin. Are Christians perfect? Absolutely not. Life is a journey and Christians are striving to become more Christ like. God may work with an individual on different areas in their life that he wants changed. It may be small, it may be something big. Each individual will fall, maybe again and again, but they will GET UP and change their ways.
But if they know for a fact that what they are doing is displeasing to God and they do it anyway, they have no right to claim his name. "If you love me follow my commandments"
Because you are reluctant to admit that the rate is so high for Christians, or do not wish to address this problem? Or do you feel that a Christian who aborts must not be sincere in their faith?
Because the walk they are walking does not line up with the talk. Again Christians can stumble and fall, sometimes extremely hard, but it will not be a life style. Are there Christian women who have gotten scared or for some other reason aborted their child and then repented of it? Yes I am sure there are. However the act of taking a life so sacred to God and ending it is a horrendous thing for someone to do who believes that God forms each child in the womb after his own image. It is not the "norm" for those who seek his will.
No I do not agree with your conclusion. It may seem logical at first glance but if someone is willing to look into it a little bit they will see it is false.
Bear with me for a minute.
If 70% of abortions are done on Christian women, could abortion be condoned by Christianity? That would seem logical. How can we verify this point? Let's go right to the source of Christianity itself. Christ and his written word, the Bible.
Any following has true believers, false converts and saboteurs. While you should be able to base a teaching on it's followers, you must verify the information from the source itself. If you read through the bible you find that we are created in God's image, formed in the womb by his hand and precious in his sight. The bible talks about the damnation that will come to any who hurt his little ones.
So....what is your conclusion from that information?
Does premarital sex cause abortion? Not exactly. Let's break it down.
How many causes of pregnancy are there? I think we can all agree that sex is required for at least most pregnancies.
What do most people want to have in place before they have children? (if they want children at all)
Probably a good enough income, a family structure of some kind and possibly several years to do their own thing. Each person will have a different ideal of being "prepared" to have a baby.
Who do you think is more likely to feel entirely unprepared to raise a baby?
A single girl not yet out of college and without a fiance, or a married woman of 25 with a husband and a steady income stream?
A 16 year old with a boy friend (the love of her life) but with no guarantee of his supporting her and no job, or a married woman with an apartment and 3 square meals a day?
Do you agree that sex before marriage is usually for recreational purposes only and most people are not hoping to have a child before they get married?
"Two-thirds of all abortions are among never-married women."
Do you understand my point?
God knows every person's heart and where they will spend eternity. We can be easily deceived looking only on the outward appearances. I do not claim to know that an individual is saved or not based on the outward appearance. However God has given us some straight forward guidelines and instructed us to be wise, not willing to accept everything someone may tell us. The trend of Christians (married or not) having the majority of abortions does not line up with the teachings of that religion. Therefore....something is off.

Are all who continue to sin "living in sin," or do some sins not count?
Asking how close to the edge you can be without falling is the wrong focus. The focus should be to be as far away from the edge as possible. God knows an individuals heart and knows what their struggles are.

By whom? He who is without sin?
There is none without sin yet God commands justice be done. There is a difference between God's role and man's role when it comes to justice. God talks about it.
Do some married women feel unready to have children? Absolutely.
Do most single woman feel prepared to have a baby? There may be a handful who want to have a baby before they get married, however that is NOT the norm. God created a family structure for a reason. Do some builders want to paint the walls before sanding them? It's against the normal flow of things.
Do you mean that there more single women conceive than married women? Or they just don't want the baby? Why is the pregnancy unwanted?
So married women automatically know how to prevent pregnancies than single women, regardless of how much experience they may have or lack in comparison to the single women?
By God in the Garden of Eden when he saw that it was not good for Adam to be alone. He gave Adam a wife.....children followed.
Well I don't understand what you are saying here, so possibly you did not understand me.
Should there be a permit for sex? It is non of the governments business. However since it is something created by God, he kind of has a right to say what he created it for.
Do you disagree that the only foul proof way to eliminate pregnancy is to eliminate sex?

That's funny. It seems to me that teaching children younger and younger about sex has encouraged them to try it earlier and earlier. And being provided with tools that are "safe" seems like a go-ahead to do it. (Oh, even the manufacturers of those tools admit they are not 100% safe. Hm....)
Hm....I believe murder is against the law. Does everyone follow that law?
Since not everyone follows it, should we make it lawful to commit murder?
Amazing what comes from messing with God's perfect design. Let me try another theory out.
If a man and a women abstain from sex before marriage, and then only interact with each other.....can they get stds?
Will everyone follow a perfect model? No. Does that mean we should throw it out?
And if the single women had not had sex, then would not be pregnant.
Can I force everyone to follow my belief? No I can't. That does not however mean it is false.
Why do I even argue about sex before marriage?
God ordained a beautiful thing when he put a man and a woman together. In today's culture we don't want to wait, we want it now. The fruit stolen is sweet but turns bitter in our mouths. It will never be as sweet again. What comes from this? Broken hearts (greater emotional bond with intimacy) STDs, unplanned pregnancies which lead to young unwed mothers struggling to make ends meet and...you guessed it. Abortion. Is it really worth fighting for that pleasure?
Amber

reply from: Hereforareason

This gets into doctrinal theology. Can someone fall away from their faith and essentially trash the sacrifice of Jesus for years, then decide they want it again? I don't think so. Can people think they were saved, find out they were not and then come to be saved? I believe it is so.
This is not really abortion debate. You probably don't agree with it, that's fine. But I hope it makes more sense with what else I say.
I believe the historical accounts that give credibility to the bible, which proclaims itself to be the Word of God.

Do you go to a public place of worship which has a set of guidelines and principles or doctrine? Who would determine how this public discipline is meted out?
There are public meetings of Christians that claim no title other than Bible believing and seek to follow God. Any denomination who follows the bible (they may interpret it differently but all seek it) can and should exercise biblical church discipline. The bible lays it out. It lays out what, how and who should met it out.
Amber

reply from: CP

As opposed to simply "falling into sin," which you can not be sure is "displeasing to God?"
The issue here is what makes one a "false Christian." If it is sinning, then one might argue there are very few true Christians.
But they are still Christians while this work is in progress, even if they "fall into sin," then repent?
How much have their ways really changed if they continue to fall "again and again?"
So, you're not a Christian if you knew you were sinning? Then these people who fall "again and again" are not Christians then? Do you really think Christians sin with no idea that what they are doing is "displeasing to God?" Why would they repent if they didn't?
You said Christians are not perfect, but strive,,,, What leads you to believe people who identify as Christians, yet abort, are not "striving?" Maybe they just "fell into sin" and are not "living in sin?"
If a woman has an abortion, is that a "lifestyle?" How do you know they didn't "stumble and fall?"
Is this supposed to substantiate your belief that the stats regarding Christian abortions are inaccurate? I don't see it.
I see no relevant conclusion that can be drawn from this regarding the rate of Christian abortions. By your own admission, Christians are not perfect, and they can "fall into sin," "stumble and fall," etc.
Who do you think is more likely to feel prepared to have and raise a child, a successful single ad executive with a six figure salary, or a married 18 year old with a household income of less than 16k per year who pays 50% of the total income for rent? You see, these examples can be crafted so as to lead erroneous conclusions... The significant factor is not marital status, but income.
Do you agree that most married couples do not wish to pump out a new child every 9-12 months, yet are still likely to regularly engage in sexual intercourse, more often with no desire to conceive than attempting to for the majority of their time together?
"Correlation in no way implies causation." Do you understand my point?
Not all adherents perfectly obey the tenets of the religion, so "something is off?" What does this even mean? How many Christians live lives that "line up with the teachings of that religion?" By your own admission, none are perfect, and all can "fall."
I'd like to hear that reason.
http://singleparents.about.com/od/legalissues/p/portrait.htm

I guess these parents didn't know they were supposed to abort, huh? Almost 22 million is some "hand full..."
The point was that there are many possible explanations, and many factors you may not have considered before rushing to pin the world's woes on beliefs that differ from your own.
Yes, I'm actually familiar with the story myself, but I can't recall any mention of a wedding....
No, that's a given. Of course that would mean the end of the human race though, so it's probably not going to be a viable solution for any of the problems society faces. (cutting off the head to spite the face, as it were)
It seems to me that sex ed came into being as a proposed solution for a problem that existed before it did, so it would be ridiculous to imply it causes the problem. I can cite surveys that substantiate my claim if you like. What do you have?
I don't get it. Are you saying premarital sex should be outlawed?
STDs are part of a "perfect model?"
Well, clearly sex is the cause of abortions then, huh?
Doesn't make it true either.
Just wait until you get to the chapter on extramarital sex and divorce...You think you're jaded now?

reply from: CP

Yes. And how is this a "theory?"
If two people shack up, "living in sin," and never get married, but are monogamous, can they get STDs?

reply from: Shenanigans

I think the interesting thing is when people talk about "religion and abortion" its always "Christianity" that is the religion. We never hear about Hindu opinions on abortion or have Buddihists offering their suggestiosn for it to cease - well, maybe that happens in India or wherever.
I for one would like Religion kept the heck out of the abortion debate, because it doesn't matter if 60% of women aborting tick the "christian" box on their pre-admission form, because a pro-abortion athetist isn't going to care that the "baby" has a "soul" and that God views abortion as murder.
With that said, I think a lot of Christian women are aborting for the same reasons non-Christian women are aborting, everything from finances to job secuirty and furthering education. I'm sure a good chunk maybe aborting to avoid embarrassment, but it does make you wonder if so many Christians are coming out in defence of pre-martial sex and contraception, why would they think anyone would have problems with them being pregnant out of wedlock?
I'm not versed enough in the superfluous amounts of protestantism to comment about whether a Christian aborting is suddenly not Christian for the 15 minutes it takes to get teh abortion and then apologise to God in the parking lot of the clinic. For a Catholic aborting she incurs an automatic excommunication. A "Christian" is simply defined as someone who beleives in the teachings of Christ. People fail, and in the case of the Christain aborting she isn't just failing, she's commiting an act of murder. Of course she can find repetence, but she's still Christian, she's just marred with one hell of a sin that if she gets hit by a bus before she can repent, for the most part, she'll go to a rather hot place.
There's plenty of Christians in Hell, and I would wager that abortion has sent a lot of them there. I mean, Tiller was a Christian. (Of course, this whole thread of the debate goes to show the huge flaw with the 'once saved always saved' nonsense').
Now, it is my beleif, based on firstly, the teachigns of the Catholic Church, common sense, and a lot of external reading, that sex out of wedlock is a very serious sin. The bible itself states a whole spiel about the kingdom of Heaven not belong to fornicators and those who commit sexual immorality. Again, this sort of thing shows the flaws in the "bible only" churches, where so many seem to exist who ignore chunks of the bible that would impeed their social lives. With that said, I don't particuarly care what people do because people will do whatever they think their conscience is allowing them to do, and if they're not goign to listen to Church authority, whether Catholic or otherwise, they're not going to listen to me.
However, just as Christians are going to have abortions, for whatever pathetic excuse they mention to God in their car on the way to the clinic, Christians are going to find "justifications" for their pre-martial immoralities, so really, there's no point arguing with most of these people because they'll do what they "feel" is okay with the Big Man Upstairs. Half the problem with these bible, lovey-dubby "churches" is they have no solid teaching base, and think that their conscience is well informed enough that they don't need a big demoniation like Catholicism or even Anglicanism - but without a solid teaching they will fall into that "well, God told me in my heart with a warm feeling that it was okay for me to have an abortion", that kind of thinking is what has lead to Christians, and uninformed Catholics perhaps justifying their abortions, that and the sin of persumption - doign somethign you know is a sin while thinking "its okay, God will forgive me later".
That got a bit cluttered - that's why I don't like religion sneaking its way into the abortion debate because people remove the focus from the unborn and turn it towards "who's really a Christian" and "who's faith is the correct one in directing people" bla bla bla.
However, if people want to have religion in teh abortion debate, do it from inside the Church, whether that be a Catholci one or a "bible only indepdepant", have ministers and priests tell their congregation that abortion is a sin, and that pre-martial sex is bibically a sin and that one can lead to the other and its time people bloody pulled up their pants and bucked up their ideas.
Contraception has been around for decades, "safe sex" messages and sex ed has been around for decades - especially in NZL, its been in the school programme for a LONG time, and what do we have to show for it? A huge break down in marriages, huge rates of pre-martial sex, abortion, STDs. In fact we have essentially free contraceptives and abortions, its easy to get, and its been a law since the late 70s that girls can get abortions and contraceptives WITHOUT parental consent. This idea that contraception and sexual education is goign to help is total [this word is not okay, either! -moderator].
This permissive mentality of "Oh, its okay, God loves me, he'll forgive me if I fornicate or if I kill this child" has done a lot of damage. I think the rates of abortion within the Christian community shows this.
Or it shows that people just automatically tick the "Christian" box as habit.
(And why is [censored] censored, its not a swear word)
[Answer: it's a euphemism for a profanity and has no meaning necessary to convey a point. Sorry, but the line has to get drawn somewhere, and that particular word is over the line. -moderator]

reply from: faithman

http://lifedynamics.com/Abortion_Information/Abortion_Quotes/EnlargeCard.cfml?card=10

reply from: Banned Member

Well that's right. That 60% looks pretty good when you consider the fact that 75% of all Americans identify themselves as Christian.http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/wayoflife/03/09/us.religion.less.christian/This is from a CNN web site to boot.

reply from: joueravecfous

And then when you read that
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db18.htm
you wonder exactly how many "true" christians there really are.

reply from: faithman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jl4-ZrvFifc&feature=player_embedded#!

reply from: Shenanigans

Which of course, you can argue the validity of said "christians" by simply realising that if so many were "real" Christians why is abortion still legal?
Its so much more a cultural thing now that I don't think we should waste much time on it.

reply from: CP

Well, Muslims are prolife, even more so than Christians (who are somewhat divided on the issue), but they really don't seem to be very vocal in their opposition, and so are not all that involved in the issue publicly.
Prolife Christians, on the other hand, tend to be very much in the public eye and actively involved. Also, Christianity is the "dominant" religion in this country, so nearly any discussion involving religion is bound to center around Christianity. Christians also seem to make their religious beliefs a major issue on nearly any argument.
All these things contribute to the fact that this sort of discussion tends to revolve more around Christianity. I certainly don't think discussions about "religion and abortion" center around Christianity because people just want to pick on you guys...
Yeah, I prefer to just discuss the facts and rely on reason myself, but for some, "morality" really is all about their religious beliefs, so I don't think that's ever going to happen. The next best thing would be for everyone to try to maintain a little objectivity and not take things so personally. Non-Christians get offended by the implications of Christian beliefs, then when they defend against those implications, Christians get offended and cry about "bashing." It's a vicious cycle.
I understand why some of the things I say are deemed offensive, but I don't really see how I can argue against a belief that is held as sacred without offending somebody. Like I said, a lot of the arguments that are based on religious beliefs could be considered offensive as well, though. I just assume it is not meant to be personal, and try to be understanding, but I get offended sometimes as well. I think we all just need to try to understand that it's a two way street.
If you argue that your views are authoritative because they come from God, you really have no right to complain when that is challenged. If you imply that the views of others are "immoral," or "evil," you have to understand that is going to offend others, and you really have no right to complain because their rebuttals challenge your beliefs and this offends you. (in my humble opinion, of course...)
I think this is a very reasonable assumption. Christians are really not so different from everyone else. Nobody is perfect, and I believe most people are generally "good," regardless of their religious beliefs. We all have faults and human weaknesses, etc.
What if she sincerely does not believe it is a "sin" to extinguish the life of a zygote because it is basically just a "clump of cells" at that point?
Jas 4:11 Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.
Jas 4:12 There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?
Jas 4:13 Go to now, ye that say, To day or to morrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain:
Jas 4:14 Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.
Jas 4:15 For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that.
Jas 4:16 But now ye rejoice in your boastings: all such rejoicing is evil.
Jas 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.
Here's the thing...People are not necessarily prochoice/proabortion because they are "bad," selfish," or "evil." I sincerely believe that most of them just don't get it, that in their minds, it's really not that big of a deal. I believe most people are basically "good," including most prochoicers. People develop at different rates, and some may never gain the clarity that others achieve on some issues.
We are certainly not born with the moral values we now hold. Children are taught "right" from "wrong" by their parents, and do not initially understand everything. They first understand only what is frowned upon by their parents and others, and understanding of the reasons why develops gradually, for some more gradually than others, and for some, perhaps not at all.
They don't necessarily "know it's a sin.."
How can you be sure the rate of premarital sex wouldn't have been worse without sex ed? How can you be sure the abortion rate would not be even higher, or grown at a higher rate if not for sex ed and contraceptives?
Research has shown comprehensive sex ed to have a positive impact. If you throw water on a fire, and the fire grows anyway, can you then assume the water made things worse?

reply from: CP

Which of course, you can argue the validity of said "christians" by simply realising that if so many were "real" Christians why is abortion still legal?
Its so much more a cultural thing now that I don't think we should waste much time on it.
Every Christian I've ever met has considered him/herself to be a "true Christian," and most of them argue that some people who identify themselves as Christians are not. It's always because of some issue or issues they disagree on.

reply from: Banned Member

Well.. I've always wondered that? I've wondered about myself at times as we all have crises of faith from time to time. I'm sure you had a point but I'm not getting it.

reply from: Banned Member

Which of course, you can argue the validity of said "christians" by simply realising that if so many were "real" Christians why is abortion still legal?
Its so much more a cultural thing now that I don't think we should waste much time on it.
Every Christian I've ever met has considered him/herself to be a "true Christian," and most of them argue that some people who identify themselves as Christians are not. It's always because of some issue or issues they disagree on.
Well.. you ain't met me yet then. I know I'm a sinner and I want there to be a heaven but my logical mind and my spiritual mind have been at odds forever. If I could take just it on faith all the time instead of most of the time, then my struggle would come to an end.. but there's the rub eh?

reply from: Banned Member

I once asked my Pastor what happens to people who never get a chance to hear the words of Jesus and the good news of our salvation and he assured me that they all must, unfortunately, go to hell.
I guess it's just like the law.. ignorance is no excuse.

reply from: CP

I once asked my Pastor what happens to people who never get a chance to hear the words of Jesus and the good news of our salvation and he assured me that they all must, unfortunately, go to hell.
I guess it's just like the law.. ignorance is no excuse.
If there's a God, I think a lot of religious leaders sell Him/Her short. I would trust Him/Her to be just, and would not put a lot of stock in the opinions and/or interpretations of men regardless of whether they claim to speak for God or have some extraordinary or divine understanding of spiritual matters. I think that if you do what you believe is right, you can't go wrong.
I am agnostic, neither believing nor disbelieving what I can not reasonably conclude to be either true or false. I am not perfect, and have not always done what I knew to be right, but if there's a God, I trust that S/he will judge me fairly where men might not.
If I was created by a supreme deity in his/her image, then S/He certainly will understand me, perhaps better than I understand myself, and I have no fear that I will be punished for honestly stating my inability to believe that which I can not know to be true, or for human failings that are inherent to mortal men. S/he would know whether I am "good" or "bad" and whether I lived up to His/Her expectations.
I seek truth, and I live according to my conscience to the best of my abilities, always striving to increase my knowledge and understanding and become a better person, not for fear of divine retribution, but because of who and what I am. I don't think any person or entity can expect more than this from me.
I oppose abortion because I know it is wrong in my heart, and if there is a God, that is how S/He speaks to me.

reply from: Banned Member

I get most of that except this part;
I'm sure Hitler thought he was doing the right thing. In his mind he loved his country, the German people, and himself and he was doing what he felt was best for all three.
This points out the weakness of atheism/agnosticism. In the absence of clear moral guidelines for behavior each one of us is left to invent our own sense of morality. Results may vary.
On the other hand, if a society agrees to embrace a universal set of moral rules and guidelines for behavior and teaches these fundamentals to all their children,
then the populace at least has the advantage of being on the same (moral) page. Therein lies the intrinsic value of organized religion and also the explanation as to why religion is and has been a universal phenomenon in all human cultures throughout know human history. This, of course, is the hidden value in the Bible too. They call it; "the good book", for a reason.
When and if we were all able to share the same notions of moral right and wrong and not left to our individual devises, we would, and do, have a much greater chance at harmony, safety and prosperity. On the other hand, if all persons were left to invent their own notions of what is moral to them.. well, we end up with a lot of amoral people. Not good.
It is, of course, the goal of Christianity to work to this end. First, inform people that they are sinners, next, teach them what sin is and what is not, then reinforce these teachings with reward and punishment (Heaven and Hell), finally, teach the value of
universally loving one another = empathy. (This off course is not a complete list of the good works of the Christian religion but is enough to make this point.)
If all people truly held empathy for all other people.. that would mark the end of all war, abortion, murder, and thousands of other kinds of abuses.
Too bad Christianity wasn't more effective at reaching it's goal, eh?
This brings me to my final point.
What I find ironic about atheists/agnostics/secular humanists/etc. is that if they were born into the western world, they were born into a society with historically strong Christian values running through that culture. Therefore they have, in fact, been influenced, tempered, and cultured in the ways of Christian culture even if they were raised Jewish, Islamic, etc. They grew up in and shared a world with Christians and the decedents of Christians and were influenced or perhaps, in the view of some, tainted by Christian sensibilities. All persons raised in predominantly Christian cultures have been swimming in a Christian cultural soup for so long that they can no longer detect it's flavor. Just as a fish doesn't realize it's wet, all persons raised in Christian cultures have themselves been cultured in Christian values and may not even know it.

reply from: CP

LN, in case you haven't noticed, there is no consensus on many moral issues among Christians. They can't even agree on doctrine, resulting in numerous denominations that seem to constantly bicker. Clearly, this single fact is enough to invalidate your argument.
Your observations regarding "soup" and "Christian values" are invalid by the same reasoning. There obviously is no set standard of "Christian values," just some Christians who deny that others who fail to share their values are Christians!
Admittedly, some values are almost universal among Christians (murder is wrong, etc.), but these basic, common sense principles are almost universally accepted outside Christianity as well, and this was true long before Christianity even existed...

reply from: terry

I believe there is a statistic out there that indicates Christian women have abortions at about the same rate as non-Christian women. I think that is because of two reasons: 1) we are all sinners and to think a Christian woman wouldn't sin (have an abortion) is just wrong. She is just as weak as others. 2) The churches need to do more to support girls/women who are unmarried and pregnant. I have said for a long time that churches need to have Sunday School classes/groups, whatever that church calls their groups, for single women and men who have children...sort of a Christian version of Parents without Parnters.

reply from: Banned Member

Clearly? Clearly because you said so? Well I guess it's settled then.
It was Jesus of Nazareth who said; "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."(Matthew 7:12)..
...and: "And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." (Matthew 22:39)..
...and; "And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." (Luke 6:31)
These very verses are the root of the Golden Rule. The world's simplest and most profound guideline for moral behavior ever uttered. The Golden Rule first appeared in it's modern English phrasing in Catholic catechism around 1567 and marks the very cornerstone of Christian teaching and Christ's philosophy. Therefore, clearly, you are wrong.
Clearly, you're still wrong.
True enough but clearly irrelevant as a rebuttal to my post.
I predicted that you could not taste the truth of the Christian goodness that you've been immersed in and have absorbed during your lifetime in America and you've just confirmed it. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

reply from: Banned Member

That's an excellent idea Terry. You should bring it up at your church.

reply from: B0zo

I once asked my Pastor what happens to people who never get a chance to hear the words of Jesus and the good news of our salvation and he assured me that they all must, unfortunately, go to hell.
I guess it's just like the law.. ignorance is no excuse. [IMG][/IMG]
I guess all those who never made it out of the womb are now in hell, according to your pastor.
I think he's wrong, of course, and that ignorancne IS an excuse.

reply from: B0zo

There is universal agreement that Jesus is God in the flesh, that He is necessary for our Salvation, and that the Scriptures are the inspired word of God.
There is disagreement about sexual morality, about contraception, and even abortion in some cases.
But what joins all Christians is not a common sense principle, but one that almost seems to go against common sense--that our Savior was born of a Virgin, was crucified, died, and by his own power came back to life.

reply from: joueravecfous

Almost?
Bit of an understatement there.

reply from: CP

Am I?
"What you do not want done to yourself do not do to others."
~Confusius~ About 5 centuries before Christ
http://origin.org/ucs/ws/theme015.cfm
http://origin.org/ucs/ws/theme015.cfm

reply from: CP

Among Christians? I don't think so. Some Christians believe the Father and Son are separate entities, while others believe Jesus was God in the form of man....
The point, however, was that there is no universally accepted "Christian morality," and the moral precepts that are pretty much universally accepted among Christians are almost universally accepted among non-Christians as well.
No one can prove this to be wrong. It is objective reality.

reply from: Shenanigans

And therein lies the problem.
From a Catholic perspective we have mortal sin vs. venial sin, and for a sin to be mortal (trip to hell) three things have to exist, 1. grave matter (breaking the 10 commandements sort of thing), 2. full knowledge that its a sin, and 3, full consent.
So a woman raised as an atheist, herself an atheist, not ever even having heard the concept that the foetus was human, she's not really committing a mortal sin, 1 & 3 exist, but 2, not so much.
Of course, this is where conscience comes in, everyone has one, and whether or not we listen to it is another matter entirely, so, all civilisations regardless of Christian influence have had laws against murder. But if abortion is not considered murder, then where's teh full knowledge? Look at China, abortion is probably as common as a lost sock in the dryer, but do they know that its wrong from a moral standpoint based on the humanity of the foetus?
I'm not God, so I can't hassit a guess as the fate of these women.
Though I wonder if full knowledge could be expanded to include if said atheist woman going for an abortion meets a Christian protestor telling her that the unborn is a human and its a sin to kill them?
I was talking about women who do "know" its a sin. Like Catholics. They may not feel its a sin, but if they're Catholic, and the Church says abortion is a sin, then they know its a sin, whether or not they acknowledge it.
I mean, what a great fun world it'd be if we could decide what was sin and what was not, or what was legal and what was not, based on how we feel right?
But that's the thing, we can't argue about "what ifs" only the "what nows".
it could have been worse, it could have been better. I think its more difficult a situation then sex ed vs. no sex ed, cr@p like Katy Perry's soft porn music videos don't help.
Depends on the fire. You don't throw water on an electrical fire, or a fat or oil based fire. Identify the fire, then select the appropriate extingisher.

reply from: Shenanigans

I once asked my Pastor what happens to people who never get a chance to hear the words of Jesus and the good news of our salvation and he assured me that they all must, unfortunately, go to hell.
I guess it's just like the law.. ignorance is no excuse. [IMG][/IMG]
So all those little unborn aborted inclusive, huh? Because there's no way a foetus can choose Jesus.
Or those with special needs? Is God throwing in to the Sulphur all the children with Downs Syndrome because clearly, they dont' have teh required mental requirements to make a 'true" choice?
God is a just God, a fair God, where's the fairness in condemning someone who's never even heard of you?
Its sick.

reply from: CP

Lots of Catholics are prochoice, and argue that abortion is not wrong.
I don't get it....If I don't think abortion is wrong, then I do not "know" it is wrong. It's not like, "I know it's wrong, but I refuse to accept that...." Some people can't just blindly accept whatever they are told to believe. Maybe such a person shouldn't be Catholic, I don't know, but I always thought "faith" was supposed to be in God, not "the Church." They know the Pope says it's wrong, and that this is the Church's official position, but they don't necessarily believe it! See what I mean?
The point is that you implied that sex ed has exacerbated the problems, but that is something you can't possibly know. The logic by which you arrived at your conclusion was flawed. An increase in the rates of abortion, STIs, etc. doesn't, in and of itself, prove sex ed is not helping...Correlation/causation, remember? The actual scientific studies show that sex ed has a positive impact in delaying the onset of sexual activity, and reducing the rate of unwanted pregnancy and STIs.
What does Katy Perry have to do with it? Are you going to switch up and blame the media now? She is a product of pop culture. She didn't create that culture....
Depends on the fire. You don't throw water on an electrical fire, or a fat or oil based fire. Identify the fire, then select the appropriate extingisher.
That actually occurred to me, but I assumed you would understand the point. Was I mistaken? You obviously could not assume the water is what made the fire grow based solely on the fact that it grew when you threw the water on it, especially if it was growing rapidly anyway, right?

reply from: CP

I once asked my Pastor what happens to people who never get a chance to hear the words of Jesus and the good news of our salvation and he assured me that they all must, unfortunately, go to hell.
I guess it's just like the law.. ignorance is no excuse. [IMG][/IMG]
So all those little unborn aborted inclusive, huh? Because there's no way a foetus can choose Jesus.
Or those with special needs? Is God throwing in to the Sulphur all the children with Downs Syndrome because clearly, they dont' have teh required mental requirements to make a 'true" choice?
God is a just God, a fair God, where's the fairness in condemning someone who's never even heard of you?
Its sick.
Maybe, but read your old testament. God apparently showed very little mercy for the children of "unbelievers...." Clearly, many modern Christians find this disturbing, so the scriptures are interpreted so as to "save" all the innocent little children. Moses said God told him to just kill them. Is it possible that Moses claimed this came from God when it really didn't? It would be naive to assume otherwise, in my opinion. Jesus even allegedly condemned religious leaders for corruption...
He may have thought he had good reasons, and was doing it for the good of his people. Is it possible that mortal men could be doing the same thing today? Well, logically speaking, it is an absolute certainty! The leaders of every Christian denomination claim to speak for God to some extent, yet they disagree on a lot of things. They can't all be right, so at least some of them are obviously not really speaking for God. Maybe none of them are....

reply from: Shenanigans

Then they are in serious error.
The Catholic Church teaches abortion is wrong, just like it teaches molesting little kids is wrong, the actions of a few wayward catholics is not deminished because they "think/feel" abortion is A-Okay.
I was being sarcastic.
I was trying to point out that just because we "feel" something isn't wrong, doesn't mean it isn't wrong. If you decide to murder someone knowing the law says murder is wrong but you personally feel that murder is okay, you are still in serious err, if however, you don't know that the law says murder is wrong and you murder, then your culpibility is deminished.
If people are "catholic" then part in parcle of that is accepting that the Pope and the Catholic Church are giving to us teachings and scholastic interpretations of the teachings of the Bible and instructing us as to moral living and natural law.
The Church isn't the one who decided abortion was wrong, et al, the Church interpreted scripture, the teachings of Christ, the 10 commandements, and natural law and through that interpretation came to teach abortion is wrong.
So when a person trusts the teaching of the Catholic church on matters like abortion, they are simply trusting the laws of God Himself expressed and explained through the Catholic church.
I see what you're getting at, I think I had my wires crossed on something. I still personally beleive, that sex ed isn't all its cracked up to be, or all that it's been promised, kids are still getting STDs, unplanned pregnancies et al, and all while being handed condoms from teachers. I mean, granted, unplanned pregnancies and STDs have always existed, but chances are they were not as high or as common in the decades before institutionalised sex ed.
But scientific studies, the few that have been allowed to follow this, have also found that abstience is great for kids, and that girls in particular really benefit from delaying sexual activity.
Exactly, she didn't create teh culture of huge amounts of open ended sexual mischeif. Lots and lots of teenagers having sex, sex ed, sex being more openly talked about, more openly advertised, THAT has created the culture which has created Katy Perry and her kin, and because of her existance in this form, she will only add to it. And I honestly beleive that the contraceptive mentality has created this, I was talking to a lady the other day at work, and she was a youngin in the 60s, and she said the biggest change was the Pill, she said men's behaviour didn't change in regards to wanting sex, but their behaviour when teh woman got pregnant changed, she spoke about how before that a guy gets a lady pregnant he marries her, but she said when the pill came along everyone was having lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of sex with lots and lots and lots and lots of people!
So if contraception allows people to have lots of sex, then lots of sex will happen because we are biologically programmed to want lots of sex because of the need to reproduce, but people dont' socially want to reproduce like rabbits, so the advent of the pill gave people the ability to ***** like no bodies business without the consquences of pregnancy.
Granted, forms of contraceptives have existed for as long as humans realised how babies are made, but the readily available and mass produced contraceptives, which have increased in efficacy have made it so much easier to engage in sexual action.
And then of course, with that new mentality comes the idea that sex somehow liberates a person, and so that idea, being all "warm and fuzzy and liberal" makes its way into a media that was looking for something apparently "upbeat".
I understood your point, I was just pointing out that if we can identify the fire we've got a better chance of fighting it.
So if we identify that the "fire" being lots of unplanned pregnancies is caused by a mentality that involves contraceptives and "safe sex" then we can address that fire by pulling back the details given to kids.
If we change the mentality that kids these days seem to have that sex makes them "cool", if we can alter it so they see sex something as special and should be saved for marriage [or not thrown around like sherbits at a lolly scramble to all in sundry] and that their value does not lie between their legs, then maybe kids will start feeling strong enough in their own selves to say no.
I have a 16 year old half sister, and the stuff she says really is quite disturbing in how she views sex, how she views herself - it seems that for her to be popular and a "grown up" sex is the best bet. Yet you'd think she'd be a little wiser, her mum, my biological mother, has had three different kids, to three different dads, I was adopted, and all three of us were concieved while our biological mother was using contraceptives, I got through the pill, a condom AND a spermicide.
Chance the mentality, change the kid's view of themselves and of sex, and I reckon the majority of kids will hold off.

reply from: Shenanigans

To be honest, I think the OT is a bunch of rubbish for the most part, I take the 10 commandements as something of value, the rest is just a bunch of angry goat herders trying to find justification to massacre their neighbours.
I mean, really, the same God who a few centuries later said "Suffer not the little children to come to me", "love one another as I have loved you", "Judge not least ye be judged" can give instruction "Cut open the bellies of pregnant women and dash the heads of the babes against the rocks"?
Don't think so.

reply from: CP

To be honest, I think the OT is a bunch of rubbish for the most part, I take the 10 commandements as something of value, the rest is just a bunch of angry goat herders trying to find justification to massacre their neighbours.
I mean, really, the same God who a few centuries later said "Suffer not the little children to come to me", "love one another as I have loved you", "Judge not least ye be judged" can give instruction "Cut open the bellies of pregnant women and dash the heads of the babes against the rocks"?
Don't think so.
Does this line up with the official teachings of the Church? I'm pretty sure it doesn't... Do you get my point, or do I need to elaborate?

reply from: Ana

Wow... really? I'd be interested in how you came to this conclusion. Miss that part where it says Christ's sacrifice was enough? I know Christians will do battle over the "extras" but I've never heard one say that God will turn his back on you. Something about "I will NEVER leave you or forsake you" is coming to mind.
Wow. How sad to feel that way.
Edited because it wasn't my intention to be rude, and that seems to be how I came across. My sincerest appologies!

reply from: Ana

Ummm, the OT is what the NT is based on. It's the very foundation of the Bible and Christ's teachings. Are you getting all this stuff from the Catholic church? Or are these your personal beliefs?

reply from: terry

Wow... really? You seriously think this AND you call yourself a Christian? Miss that part where it says Christ's sacrifice was enough? I know Christians will do battle over the "extras" but I've never heard one say that God will turn his back on you. Something about "I will NEVER leave you or forsake you" is coming to mind.
Wow. How sad to feel that way.
Hi Ana,
I'm sorry, I think you missed the big debate we just had about whether it's ok to say something like this under the new rules of appropriate conduct on the forum, and it's been decided that it's a little too close for comfort to personal attacks, to question people's religious beliefs in that way, unless there is some strong relevancy to the current abortion-related discussion. I don't want to edit your post, because I think you are making a point with the question, and I want to give you the chance to make the point a little bit differently, rather than trying to read your mind and make it for you, or delete it entirely. Thanks for understanding, and it's great to see you posting lately!!

reply from: Hereforareason

Wow... really? You seriously think this AND you call yourself a Christian? Miss that part where it says Christ's sacrifice was enough? I know Christians will do battle over the "extras" but I've never heard one say that God will turn his back on you. Something about "I will NEVER leave you or forsake you" is coming to mind.
Wow. How sad to feel that way.
Hello Ana nice to see you on the forum.
I am hoping that what was meant by the statement about Christians in hell was different from how you interpreted it. I can't say for sure what Shenanigans was meaning with it, but I thought I would post my views on it.
I do believe that there are a lot of people that CALL themselves Christians who are in Hell. The bible teaches that. "Lord, Lord, did we not do many marvelous works in your name? Depart from me ye workers of inequity, I never knew you."
The caution here is not that God may change his mind and leave you stranded, he never will. But rather to "Make your calling and election sure, that ye may know you are saved".
No man can point to anyone and say "He is saved without a doubt" because God only knows the heart. But deeds proceed out of the heart, therefore it is possible to identify people who are not Christians. (Not a wise thing to do on a personal level, not our place to go accusing people, warning them yes) However anyone who is trying to say Tiller was a Christian......did not understand some core basic principles from the bible.
Would you agree with that view point Ana?
Amber

reply from: B0zo

Shenanigans is speaking from a Catholic perspective which does not believe somoene cannot lose their salvation. Salvation is something that must be constantly worked out while in this lifetime, and a Christian could fall away into serious sin and lose their salvation. This does not mean they were not a Christian in the first place or that they cease to be one. If Tiller was baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirt, he was a Christian.

reply from: CP

Ah, semantics....Would you define "Christian" for us?
If you guys decide to do a "OSAS" debate (or anything along those lines) in private, pleeeeeeaaaaase invite me! While I don't technically have a dog in that fight, I'm actually quite well versed on the relevant scriptures, and would have a lot to contribute to the discussion.

reply from: Ana

Yes, I missed it. I wasn't aware such a conversation was had but in retrospect, things HAVE been different around here recently!
The post has been edited, and I offer a heartfelt appology to anyone I offended. I was shocked by the comment, but it wasn't my desire to be rude to anyone. Again, I ask forgivness for acting uncharitably.
Wow... really? You seriously think this AND you call yourself a Christian? Miss that part where it says Christ's sacrifice was enough? I know Christians will do battle over the "extras" but I've never heard one say that God will turn his back on you. Something about "I will NEVER leave you or forsake you" is coming to mind.
Wow. How sad to feel that way. [IMG][/IMG]
Hi Ana,
I'm sorry, I think you missed the big debate we just had about whether it's ok to say something like this under the new rules of appropriate conduct on the forum, and it's been decided that it's a little too close for comfort to personal attacks, to question people's religious beliefs in that way, unless there is some strong relevancy to the current abortion-related discussion. I don't want to edit your post, because I think you are making a point with the question, and I want to give you the chance to make the point a little bit differently, rather than trying to read your mind and make it for you, or delete it entirely. Thanks for understanding, and it's great to see you posting lately!!

reply from: Ana

Amber, while I agree with you in general, it's when you strt using actual people as an example that I have difficulty. The verse you quoted where the Lord says, "I knew you not" (scariest verse in the Bible, if you ask me!) I agree is about false christians, people who use G-d for their own justifications, cultural christians, ect. However, while I could give you examples of these types, I wouldnt think of calling them out by name unless I knew them personally and we could talk in private.
1st of all, people can fall away from G-d and then return. He desires us to be with Him and love Him, and has promised that he would NEVER leave us. Not maybe, not under certain circumstances, but NEVER. We can pull away from him, but that doesn't mean he has let go of us, much like if your child rebeled or ran away... they're still yours, you continue to look for them and they're return, and you would run to them if they ever called you. So it is with the Father.
2nd, people do things thinking they are in G-ds will, when they really aren't. Foe example, Christmas... some good Christan folks think this is a holy day, celebrating the birth of the Savior. Others, also very good Christian folks will tell you Christmas is a Pagan holy day, and we have no business celebrating it, no matter HOW it has been reworked. ou can dress it up anyway you want it, it's still a solstice holiday. Someone is wrong. Does that make them less likely to get to heaven?
3rd, there was but ONE requirement to get into Heaven, and that was acceptin that Yeshua (Jesus) took YOUR place on the cross, and because of Him and Him alone, you have been saved. es, you can tell quite a bit about someone by their actions, but that means you loose out on blessings in Heaven, not heaven itself.
I hope that makes sense, and I'm sorry if it sounded like I was questioning your salvation, I promise I wasn't. But it clearly came off that way, and rereading it, I agree it was a very poorly worded statement. I'm very sorry, Amber!
Wow... really? You seriously think this AND you call yourself a Christian? Miss that part where it says Christ's sacrifice was enough? I know Christians will do battle over the "extras" but I've never heard one say that God will turn his back on you. Something about "I will NEVER leave you or forsake you" is coming to mind.
Wow. How sad to feel that way. [IMG][/IMG]
Hello Ana nice to see you on the forum.
I am hoping that what was meant by the statement about Christians in hell was different from how you interpreted it. I can't say for sure what Shenanigans was meaning with it, but I thought I would post my views on it.
I do believe that there are a lot of people that CALL themselves Christians who are in Hell. The bible teaches that. "Lord, Lord, did we not do many marvelous works in your name? Depart from me ye workers of inequity, I never knew you."
The caution here is not that God may change his mind and leave you stranded, he never will. But rather to "Make your calling and election sure, that ye may know you are saved".
No man can point to anyone and say "He is saved without a doubt" because God only knows the heart. But deeds proceed out of the heart, therefore it is possible to identify people who are not Christians. (Not a wise thing to do on a personal level, not our place to go accusing people, warning them yes) However anyone who is trying to say Tiller was a Christian......did not understand some core basic principles from the bible.
Would you agree with that view point Ana?
Amber

reply from: Ana

The comment about Christians going to Hell was from Amber, the comment about the OT being rubbish was from Shenannagins. Does the Catholic Church feel the OT isn't of much worth, or less worth than the NT?
Thank you for explaining this perspective, though! Perhaps Amber is a Catholic as well?

reply from: terry

Ana ..... you are so awesome!

reply from: CP

Mat 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.
Joh 8:34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
Mat 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
Rom 6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
Rom 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Rom 6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
Rom 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
Rom 6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.
Rom 6:8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
Rom 6:9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
Rom 6:10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
Rom 6:11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Rom 6:12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
Rom 6:13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
Rom 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
Rom 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
Rom 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
Rom 6:18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
Rom 6:19 I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.
Rom 6:20 For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.
Rom 6:21 What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.
Rom 6:22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

reply from: B0zo

Thank you for explaining this perspective, though! Perhaps Amber is a Catholic as well?
The Catholic Church reveres the OT. Thomas Aquinas said that the NT is hidden within the OT.

reply from: Ana

Wow... thank you!!

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

People are evil. People are selfish. In their self-interest others get destroyed or taken advantage of. Kids die through abortion because worthless dads couldn't care a lick about meeting their obligations to them (financial, time, mentor, leader, etc.).
99% of so called "Christians" are just like any other evildoers. They will certainly not be entering by the narrow gate into eternal life. The vast army of Protestants and Catholics are taking the wide and easy road to destruction.
The Priests, Reverends, Ministers and Pastors will not admit that the majority of "Christians" are on a death march.
A Christian is one who is required to walk just as Jesus walked: obeying the Law and having faith in the Messiah's leadership. The Law requires you to love others and God. Love brings peace and life; selfishness leads to destruction and death.
Christ is the only Way to life. Few follow His Path (living lawfully). Sinning slobs is the path for the majority.
Islam is a fascist political and military movement bent on imposing their solution on the world. Islam will destroy all life on this planet unless there is outside intervention.

reply from: CP

Might I say the same about Christianity based on the views of the Westboro Baptist Church, Dominionists, and reconstructionists?
No, Christianity is not the problem, some of the Christians are. Likewise, Islam is itself not a threat to anyone. Radical Muslims, like the more radical Christians, certainly represent a very real threat, however. You don't want anyone unfairly "bashing" the beliefs you hold sacred, do you? So why would you feel you have a right to do just that to others?

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

Islam is itself not a threat to anyone. Radical Muslims, like the more radical Christians, certainly represent a very real threat, however. You don't want anyone unfairly "bashing" the beliefs you hold sacred, do you? So why would you feel you have a right to do just that to others?
Muhammad clearly made the claim that his commission was to fight against the unbelievers until they all submit to Islam and become worshippers of Allah. Since the time of Muhammad, global domination has been the goal of Islam.
Allah's Apostle (Muhammad) said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.'"
Fight those from among the people of the Book, who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor hold as unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have declared to be unlawful, nor follow the true religion, until they pay the tax considering it a favour and acknowledge their subjection. -Surah 9:29 (Sher Ali)
O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him). -Surah 9:123 (Pickthall)
Muhammad encouraged the spread of his religion by force.
"Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not." -Surah 2:216 (Pickthall)
Are there not multiple terrorist attacks each month? And are not 90% of those Islamic attacks?
9/11 opened my eyes. I learned that Muhammad was a terrorist and murderer and Allah encourages others to be the same. I preach against the evil that has caused so much terrorism and death.
The Revelation of Jesus Christ tells me the Mark of Allah (the Bismillah, In the Name of Allah) is the Mark of the Beast (The symbols in Revelation more closely resemble the Arabic symbols of the Bismillah than the Greek symbols for 666. Islamic warriors wear the Bismillah Mark of Allah as a headband or armband). Revelation tells me an Islamic Caliphate will be the eighth and final world-influencing Empire to rule over Jerusalem - causing a near extinction of mankind. I understand they will behead Christians, try to annihilate Jews, and force people to submit to Allah and Sharia Law under loss of rights to buy and sell or even retain one's head. Numerous prophecies say Turkey (the leader), Iran (second fiddle) and other area Islamic nations will conspire to wipe Israel off the map "so the name of Israel will be remembered no more." (Psalm of Asaph)

reply from: CP

Wow, GL! How many times have I rebutted this propaganda? 12, 15? Do you not even care whether it's true or not?
I assume the following quotes (taken out of context) are meant to substantiate this creative interpretation? Muhammed made no such claim, GL! This is a creative interpretation of the Koran, and nothing more, isn't that right? It really is disingenuous to say that someone "clearly made a claim" when they did not...
The Koran
The Disbelievers
In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.
[109.1] Say: O unbelievers!
[109.2] I do not serve that which you serve,
[109.3] Nor do you serve Him Whom I serve:
[109.4] Nor am I going to serve that which you serve,
[109.5] Nor are you going to serve Him Whom I serve:
[109.6] You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion.
Please provide your source and the proper context. Quote mining is dishonest, and is often used as a tool for intentional misrepresentation.
This is from the chapter called "The Immunity." You have taken the verses out of context and misrepresented their meaning. The chapter begins:
[9.1] (This is a declaration of) immunity by Allah and His Apostle towards those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement.
In its proper context, it is not about subjugation of a people, it is about a people who have agreed to the terms the Muslims outlined in exchange for the privilege of living with them.
Quite often, the Jews, especially, failed to keep their word, resulting in fighting. The "subjectoin" referred to in your quote is to government, and is no different than modern immigrants becoming "subject" to our laws and required to pay taxes. The Jews agreed to abide by the law, then once established, tried to get out of paying the taxes on religious grounds. This chapter addresses this problem so that Muslims will understand they are allowed to fight under these circumstances.
Ordinarily, Muslims are never permitted to be aggressors. It says so in the Koran (quote will be included in next response). This is one exception to that rule, and it is about enforcing the law on those who have agreed to follow it.
Read entire chapter here:
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=DIV0&byte=282392

This is a lie straight from the hate sites you frequent.
Yes, the Koran says Muslims must fight, but it clearly outlines the conditions under which fighting is allowed. The next verse:
[2.217] They ask you concerning the sacred month about fighting in it. Say: Fighting in it is a grave matter, and hindering (men) from Allah's way and denying Him, and (hindering men from) the Sacred Mosque and turning its people out of it, are still graver with Allah, and persecution is graver than slaughter; and they will not cease fighting with you until they turn you back from your religion, if they can; and whoever of you turns back from his religion, then he dies while an unbeliever-- these it is whose works shall go for nothing in this world and the hereafter, and they are the inmates of the fire; therein they shall abide.
I emphasized the part that says "persecution is graver than slaughter" because fighting is generally only allowed in self defense (upholding the law was an exception, as noted in my last response).
Isn't it odd that you would quote one one of two verses that are combined in the text as part of a single message?
Read the chapter for yourself at:
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=DIV0&byte=1320

Here's another quote we often see "mined" from the Koran, taken out of context so as to misrepresent what it says:
[2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.
You have quoted this verse before, and it is very popular on Islamic hate sites. Now see how it reads in proper context:
[2.190] And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.
[2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.
[2.192] But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[2.193] And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.
[2.194] The Sacred month for the sacred month and all sacred things are (under the law of) retaliation; whoever then acts aggressively against you, inflict injury on him according to the injury he has inflicted on you and be careful (of your duty) to Allah and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).
[2.195] And spend in the way of Allah and cast not yourselves to perdition with your own hands, and do good (to others); surely Allah loves the doers of good.
Wow! "No hostility except against oppressors!" How about that? Is that why you don't quote this one any more? You realize it actually disproves your claims when viewed in context?
Oddly enough, Israeli oppression of Palestinians is not considered to be "terrorism," but when the Palestinians retaliate, that is. Check out this web site to see a little truth for a change, something you don't get much of at the sites you usually rely on for info...
http://jfjfp.com/
(Jews for Justice for Palestinians)
There's a lot more out there than this, but I wanted to link you to a source that you might not immediately consider to be biased....
What is really ironic here is that Christians have historically attempted to spread their religion by force, and today are set on proselytizing the entire world, believing it is their Christian duty to convert the whole world to Christianity! Muslims rarely proselytize at all!

reply from: CP

Most Christians seem to think they are on the right path, and it is others who fail to agree with them on some point or another that may be in danger of damnation...

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 196
And the Prophet (peace be upon him) said, "I have been ordered to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship other than Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, establish the prayer, and pay zakat, and if they do this, then their blood and money shall be protected from me, except by an Islamic right, and their account will be with Allah.
The above seems pretty damning. However, I realize there are books that present scores of arguments explaining the angles and why this really isn't a threatening or inappropriate verse but a perfectly reasonable statement that was once again taken out of context. I imagine you study and apply those arguments.

reply from: CP

Well, GL, I don't happen to have a copy of that book, so I can't read the quote in context, and I don't know how credible the source is either.
What I DO know is that the Muslims follow the Koran like Christians follow the Bible, and that the Koran doesn't require Muslims to do what the quote says. In fact, the quote itself doesn't say Muslims are to do so, only that Muhammad said HE was instructed to.
I showed you what the Koran has to say on the subject, and clearly showed you that the BS you read on the hate sites you frequent are misrepresentations of the truth, didn't I? What more do you need? Do you simply refuse to believe you have been misled? We have danced this danced before, have we not? Do you refuse to accept that Muslims are actually just like Christians? Some are good people, and some are not. Do you refuse to accept the fact that Islam is being misrepresented? Will you continue to advance these false notions of Islam?
I know you think I am biased, and I have not forgotten that you falsely accused me of being a Muslim in the past, but I assure you that my only loyalty is to the truth and justice for all men...I have seen the same claims you have, but rather than accept them at face value, I have researched the matter so as to uncover the truth.
It is a complicated issue, but there are several facts that we should all be aware of. The most important is that Arabs in the ME have been sorely oppressed for decades. We are not victims of terrorism because Muslims want to take over the world, kill all "infidels," or because they "hate freedom and the American way of life." There are people who want you to believe that, but the truth is that the U.S. blindly sides with Israel, and they can do no wrong in our eyes. We support them as they carry out a campaign of oppression against Arabs in the region, causing them to view us as "the enemy," or at least allied to their enemy and contributing to the injustices being inflicted every day on Palestinian Arabs.
It doesn't help the situation any that there are so many hard heads in this country who insist that Muslims are evil personified, and propagate dishonest propaganda that misrepresents Islam as a barbaric religion that demands the blood of all who will not convert. It simply is not so, and the Muslims know it.
In reality, the Koran says they can pretty much only fight in self defense (I showed you the verses in context, and how they are misrepresented by bigots), and are not allowed to ever be the aggressors. The problem is that they are actually being oppressed, and have been for decades, so it's not hard at all for them to justify violence in retaliation!
Even the Israelis themselves understand that this is so, but most rationalize it in one way or another. There IS a growing number of Jews, including many Israelis, who have stood up to decry the treatment of Arabs, and they (we) understand that the Palestinians are and have been treated unfairly, and that they have legitimate cause to be angry.
As long as Israel continues their expansion at the expense of Arabs, there will never be peace, and most of us realize that. I only wish more people had the desire for truth and justice, and the integrity to speak out against inhumanity regardless of who the victims are or conflicting agendas, religious, political, economic, or whatever. The truth is not so elusive that it can not be discovered by those who are willing to look, but it seems that many do not want to know any truth that fails to serve their purposes or is not as attractive to them as the lie....

reply from: CP

You know how Christianity has many different denominations, and even "non-denominational" followers? I assume you are also aware that even members of a single denomination do not agree on everything. There are Christians who rationalize killing based on the OT, and others who believe a Christian must strictly follow a path of non-violence...
There are Christians who interpret the scriptures so as to justify all their personal agendas or agendas of groups to which they belong, some who put very little stock in the Bible at all, some who believe it is to be taken literally, others who believe it is mostly allegory, and just an astonishing array of differing beliefs and attitudes, and widely varying interpretations....
The point here is that Muslims are the same way. Muhammad was not just a religious leader, but a political leader as well, and he lived in times of war. You can certainly find statements that could be interpreted as proof that Islam is not a religion of peace, but if you learn the history and place everything in the proper context, everything becomes more clear.
There are many who are biased against Muslims, especially after 9-11, and blind hatred is fairly common here in the states. Many WANT to believe the worst about Islam and Muslims, and Christians are not exactly known for their tolerance of other religions to start with. So, we get all this "damning" (your word) propaganda about Islam, and people going on about how "evil" Muhammad was. Of course, in reality, Muhammad and the Muslims did not kill non-combatants like the Jews did, and if the truth be told, according to the standards by which Islam is condemned by many, far more "damning" evidence can be shown against Christianity!
But, it would be unfair to judge the religion itself by the actions of some adherents, wouldn't it? Despite all the "dirt" on Christianity, I would never say the religion itself is "evil" or that the adherents as a whole represent a threat to anyone. Some of them do, but it is their interpretations that make them dangerous. The same is true of Islam!
I really wish I new how to get through to people like you, GL. I understand that many are angry because of things Muslims have done, especially 9-11, but we should all understand that it has been "9-11" for Palestinian Arabs for over half a century at least! They, also, have legitimate reasons to be angry, not only with Israel, but with us as well. It's actually a wonder that we haven't felt more heat than we have!

reply from: lukesmom

Ana, this point may have been made but God will never leave or forsake us but we, as humans, often leave and forsake Him. this is where some who call themselves "christians" end up in hell IMHO.

reply from: faithman

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j214/yodavater/IamaPerson2.jpg

reply from: Navier

here you go
http://pewforum.org/Abortion/Religious-Groups-Official-Positions-on-Abortion.aspx
">http://pewforum.org/Abortion/R...n-Abortion.aspx
(nice, brief, impartial, more or less scientific)
I am not sure how abortion and hatred towards other religions exactly relate, but I am pretty amazed by the amount of bs I just read. Being pro-Jesus and being anti-abortion have absolutely nothing to do with one another. But I am amazed by how quickly this correlation was made and how quickly people jumped on the who is right and who is wrong, and who is going to hell and who is not topic.
There are no heaven and hell, and you just die and that is it.

reply from: faithman

Another deluded fool. Psalm 14:1

reply from: Navier

To that I reply "Religion is a neurological disorder that stops people from thinking." (Bill Maher).
If you need a fantasy story to get you through the day, that is cool with me. Life is not easy. Some people need to feel like something very powerful has their back to be able to go on. You relay on human emotion to explain things, I relay on hard science.
The problem is that I can explain religious people to myself and understand them and like them, but religious people tend to have a problem explaining, accepting, and liking people who do not believe or agree with their particular story, or really anything that is different from what they know. That is why religion is always going to be the best excuse for fighting wars.
The other problem is that religious people seem to not be able to comprehend that morals do actually exist even outside of their frameworks. Their particular set of morals is based on some earlier set (the set depends on what religion we are talking about). It is possible to desire to do good and to know right from wrong even if you are not threatened with the fire of hell. Granted, not all humans are capable of logical reasoning and most require some motivation not to be selfish, so having a stencil provided by your religious text is pretty convenient and in some cases necessary.
The real problem appears when you want to base laws of a sovereign country solely in a religious text published a few thousands of years ago. If you use your religious text as the only justification why everyone should do something your way, it's not going to work out. You can check out history books.
Anyone else want to troll, or are we now done?

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

The 1948 Arab-Israeli war commenced upon the termination of the British Mandate of Palestine in mid-May 1948, following a period of civil war in 1947 - 1948. After the Arab rejection of the 1947 UN General Assembly Resolution 181 that would have created an Arab state and a Jewish state side by side, five Arab states - Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria - attacked Israel, which had declared its independence on the eve of final British withdrawal.
Israel has less than 1% of the land in the Middle-East yet CP accuses the Jews of expansionism, taking Arab land and oppressing Arabs. CP indicates the Arab Muslims have reason to be angry with Israel and the US.
This is what the nations surrounding Israel say. I believe this is a prophecy rather than history. But history repeats itself.
Psalm 83:3-4 (New American Standard Bible)
3They make shrewd plans against Your people,
And conspire together against Your treasured ones.
4They have said, "Come, and let us wipe them out as a nation,
That the name of Israel be remembered no more."

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

It is true that no man has ascended to heaven (Jesus only) and there is no Dante's Inferno type of hell. A person is not conscious after death.
The hell of the Bible is a grave, pit, tomb or dump such as Gehenna where dead bodies were disposed of through cremation.
However, some men are called to inherit the earth and rule and manage not only the earth but all of the Universe. This is possible through a resurrection at or after the time Christ returns to Jerusalem to rule.

reply from: Navier

It is true that no man has ascended to heaven (Jesus only) and there is no Dante's Inferno type of hell. A person is not conscious after death.
The hell of the Bible is a grave, pit, tomb or dump such as Gehenna where dead bodies were disposed of through cremation.
However, some men are called to inherit the earth and rule and manage not only the earth but all of the Universe. This is possible through a resurrection at or after the time Christ returns to Jerusalem to rule.
I am assuming you are quoting your religious text of choice.
First, I would like to observe that you are saying that the religious text defined what the Universe was. Not so many years ago (certainly after the text came into existance), we thought Earth was in the center of the Universe. Today we are able to estimate that the universe (which we are able to see) contains more than 125 billion! galaxies. Just our Milky Way has 100 - 400 billion stars (ie suns, each of which has its own system of planets). It has been estimated that about 20% of planets might have similar conditions as Earth and be suitable for development of life. Further more, the string theory suggests that there might be infinitely many universes. Given all this, do you understand how silly it sounds to me when you say "some men are called to inherit the earth and rule and manage not only the earth but all of the Universe". I would think god would be aware and gave us some hints about the size of the universe.
I also often wonder why is heaven up - why is it necessary to "ascend to heaven". From a physical perspective, this really should not matter.
Second, you are ranting about Arabs fighting for the land. You must understand that the land for which Arabs are fighting is the land they believe belongs to them. I'm sure you'd be infuriated if someone tried to take your backyard and give it to someone else, or declared that the other side of your street is now a different country.
But anyway, try to forget religion for a second and realize that you are ranting about a war for territory and the fact that one people won't give up their piece of land to another people . Yet the quote you posted is clearly a claim that - just you wait, all of this is going to be ours soon. Now if that is true, and if god (very powerful, can make anything happen) is protecting certain people who follow certain rules, and if this people is to inherit everything anyway - then why fight? Just go get a house somewhere in the world, preach your faith in peace, and wait till the prophesied day to get your territory back.
Religion will always promote violence.

reply from: AshMarie88

You don't have to be Christian in order to be pro-life, but you can't be Christian and NOT pro-life.

reply from: lukesmom

Very true Ash. Oh BTW Navier, just because Bill Maher says something, doesn't make it true.

reply from: B0zo

Really?
Can you be a Christian and have sex before marriage?
Can you be a Christian and believe use of contraception is fine?

reply from: lukesmom

Really?
Can you be a Christian and have sex before marriage?
Can you be a Christian and believe use of contraception is fine?
Are you getting the broad definition of christian and Catholic confused???

reply from: B0zo

I'm not confused at all.
What's the "broad definition" of Christian?

reply from: lukesmom

I'm not confused at all.
What's the "broad definition" of Christian?
Anyone who professes a belief in Jesus Christ.

reply from: B0zo

I'm not confused at all.
What's the "broad definition" of Christian?
Anyone who professes a belief in Jesus Christ.
I disagree with your definition.
However, if this is the "broad definition" of what a Christian is, then why can't that person also be pro-choice? Why couldn't that person believe that a person becomes ensouled when they take their first breath?

reply from: lukesmom

Can you be a Christian and have sex before marriage?
Can you be a Christian and believe use of contraception is fine?
You asked the above questions, I didn't. Not all christian religions believe sex before marraige or the use of contraception is not fine. The Catholic religion does. While the Catholic religion is a christian religion, not all christian religions are the Catholic religion.
Christian religions follow the teachings of Christ and one teaching is "Thou shalt not kill." Abortion is killing therefore, one cannot be proabortion and christian.

reply from: B0zo

Birth control pills and IUDs allegedly kill.
Yet some Christians use them. Are they not real Christians because they do?
Some Christians might say that an embryo is not a human person, and that they are therefore not killing anyone. Does their ignorance mean they are not a Christian or does their ignorance excuse them?
And some Christians have knowingly done bad things including murder. They don't stop being a Christian as soon as they sin, even if it's a bad sin.

reply from: Shenanigans

Really?
Can you be a Christian and have sex before marriage?
Can you be a Christian and believe use of contraception is fine?
Are you getting the broad definition of christian and Catholic confused???
Up until about 1500 there were only one kind of Christian, and they were Catholics.
Catholic simply means "universal". It took a few idiots and adulterers to decide that there should be a difference between Christian and Catholic.

reply from: lukesmom

any christian who knowingly and intentionally kills another by whatever means is not practicing christianity and is not a christian in good standing. Of course they can be forgiven of that sin but then it is expected they will not knowingly repeat the sin.
Truthfully, calling yourself christian or Catholic or any other religion doesn't mean a thing UNLESS you follow the rules/beliefs of that religion. Anyone can say they are anything. I can say I am a purple man but that doesn't make it so.

reply from: lukesmom

Catholics are christians but not all christians are Catholic, some are Lutheran, Methodist, etc.

reply from: B0zo

What if it is not knowingly or intentionally?
What if they truly believe a fetus has no soul until viablity?

reply from: B0zo

But you say it's ok to kill zygotes, and other Christians would say it's murder.
If you believe you can be a Christian and a zygote killer advocate, why couldn't someone else be a Chrisitan and pro-abortion?

reply from: Shenanigans

Catholics are christians but not all christians are Catholic, some are Lutheran, Methodist, etc.
I knwo what you're saying, but I'm trying to point out, that for 1,500 years there were only one kind of "Christian" and they were Catholics. It took an adulterous king and a guy with the wrong end of teh stick to decide to cause a massive schism that has not healed, and has yeiled only confusion and heart ache.
Do people really think Christ would want such confusion in His Church?

reply from: faithman

You are just simply historicly inaccurate. Eastern orthadox was around be for the church in rome, and the church in Ethiopia also predates the christianized paganism of the vatican. There was also a church in lebanon that I forget then name of. All these predate the murderous perversion of the faith by Romanism. The faith of the reformers was not new, it was a return to truth, and a departure from corruption.

reply from: faithman

...and yes, this does affect the abortion issue. It is the total pacifism dogma of papist that has done more than anything to keep abortion legal in America.

reply from: faithman

Can anybody say Ted Kennedy, Boxer, Kerry, and Palosi? And just what "faith" tradition do they claim to follow? All radical pro-aborts.

reply from: lukesmom

They are not considered Catholics in good standing because they do not follow the basic beliefs of the Catholic religion. IMHO, they are not Catholic as they follow the religion in name only.

reply from: lukesmom

I understand what you are saying. I just wanted to clarify as I have been told I am not christian because I am Catholic. There are many ignorant people who actually believe this. And, no, Christ did not want this division and confusion amongest His followers.

reply from: lukesmom

What if it is not knowingly or intentionally?
What if they truly believe a fetus has no soul until viablity?
How can a living human have no soul??? All christians believe all life comes from God. Christian proaborts can make all the excuses they want to hide the truth of this. In the end they have deluded themselves and made themselves "god". Setting oneself up as a god is not a christian belief so if they are christian and are proabortion, they are not living thier christian faith and are christian in name only. IMHO when you don't follow christian beliefs you are not christian. Again, anyone can call themselves anything, but that doesn't make it true.

reply from: lukesmom

The "church in rome" started with Jesus Christ and His apostiles. Peter is considered the first Pope. Anything that predates Christ is not christian.

reply from: B0zo

What if it is not knowingly or intentionally?
What if they truly believe a fetus has no soul until viablity?
How can a living human have no soul??? All christians believe all life comes from God. Christian proaborts can make all the excuses they want to hide the truth of this. In the end they have deluded themselves and made themselves "god". Setting oneself up as a god is not a christian belief so if they are christian and are proabortion, they are not living thier christian faith and are christian in name only. IMHO when you don't follow christian beliefs you are not christian. Again, anyone can call themselves anything, but that doesn't make it true.
Aquinas did not believe a fetus had a soul until a later stage--I forget how many days, and it was different for male and female--but it was a considerable amount of time. There are other Christians who believe in ensoulment at the time of "quickening," whatever that means.
If we can say that someone is a Christian even if they practice the evil of contraception, I don't see how we can say they are not if they believe in abortion.
Christians outside of the Church have no authority and are flying by the seat of their pants, and without that guidance can buy into contraception and abortion as legitimate.

reply from: Momof4

But you say it's ok to kill zygotes, and other Christians would say it's murder.
If you believe you can be a Christian and a zygote killer advocate, why couldn't someone else be a Chrisitan and pro-abortion?
I dunno, ask Tiller. He got blown away in church. Think of all the Catholics who've done wrong to their children and other peoples children, there are still priests out there getting sued for being dirty old men. She believes in contraception and your only means of arguing with her is by shoving your religion down her throat.

reply from: B0zo

But you say it's ok to kill zygotes, and other Christians would say it's murder.
If you believe you can be a Christian and a zygote killer advocate, why couldn't someone else be a Chrisitan and pro-abortion?
I dunno, ask Tiller. He got blown away in church. Think of all the Catholics who've done wrong to their children and other peoples children, there are still priests out there getting sued for being dirty old men. She believes in contraception and your only means of arguing with her is by shoving your religion down her throat.
I did no such thing. I do not deny that she can be a Christian while using contraception and believing it's ok to kill zygotes. She's in error from my perpective, but ignorantly so, and not willfully.
And it's true that Catholics sin. We already know this. That's why we have Confession.
At any rate, if a Christian can be a contraceptor and a zygote killer advocate, why couldn't they also be pro-choice?
It was ashemarie who claimed someone could not be both Christian and prochoice, and that's who my questions have been directed to.

reply from: Navier

Very true Ash. Oh BTW Navier, just because Bill Maher says something, doesn't make it true.
to lukesmom: I am going to interpret your statement in the following way - things that you say are in the Bible and therefore must be true. Now, my response is not just to you, but what you wrote inspired my thoughts.
Why do you think that your *interpretation* of the things in the Bible is true? Just because a large group of people (your denomination) agrees on a particular interpretation does not make it correct (or true).
From these previous posts I can see that not even all of you who label yourselves as Christians can agree which interpretation is correct.
And you see, interpretation is the most important part. Through interpretation religion becomes politicized and evil, and in some cases results in fundamentalism. Furthermore, it is impossible to reason religion. Descartes tried and failed, and he was a much better mathematician and physicist than I am.

Now, I saw how some of you here are bashing reforms Christianity went through. Yet, those reforms are what to some extent protected Christianity from developing more fundamentalist ideas, and what regulated the amount and extent of corruption and political influence religion could be used for.
Believe it or not, religion exists because of society, not the other way around. All major religions prohibit killing people (otherwise their teachings would be counter productive). Everything else that happens is a consequence of interpretations.
To illustrate this (and to prevent any rage-attacks), I would like to offer the following (stereotypical) verse from the Bible:
"Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks!"(Psalm 137:9).
Please restrain yourself from explaining the meaning of it to me, as I already know. Just keep it in mind if you ever get tempted to take stuff form Qur'an or some other religious text and cite it out of cultural and historical context.
But I digress,
to lukesmom: yes, you are correct. Just because Bill Maher says something, does not make it true. However, in this case I am able to follow his thought process and logically reach the same conclusion that he did. I can also say that there is a large group of people who agree with me on this statement, and who independently reached the same conclusion - this particular statement very well summed up a particular problem we observed in the society. Therefore it is true for me in pretty much the same way that your particular interpretation of the Bible is true for you.
What I say is not going to change your point of view on anything, nor I would like for that to happen. However, I think that religion allows for reasoning and logic within its framework. Perhaps you will read something that will (not likely) inspire you to critically analyze your standpoints on different issues, realize where your values came from, and adjust them for the better, less violent, and more productive ones. "I am right and everyone else is wrong and shall be punished" is very violent and nonproductive attitude.

reply from: Navier

Really?
Can you be a Christian and have sex before marriage?
Can you be a Christian and believe use of contraception is fine?
Is contraception explicitly forbidden? Where does it say that?
Given that god created mankind and understands its internal workings, and given that god knows things that happened and will happen, I would think that he would explicitly forbid something like contraception if he thought it might become an issue (like he did with murder).

reply from: AshMarie88

But you say it's ok to kill zygotes, and other Christians would say it's murder.
If you believe you can be a Christian and a zygote killer advocate, why couldn't someone else be a Chrisitan and pro-abortion?
Could you drop that subject already? This thread isn't about the MAP, and I'm sure Terry wouldn't like you bringing something else up. Stay on track.

reply from: B0zo

But you say it's ok to kill zygotes, and other Christians would say it's murder.
If you believe you can be a Christian and a zygote killer advocate, why couldn't someone else be a Chrisitan and pro-abortion?
Could you drop that subject already? This thread isn't about the MAP, and I'm sure Terry wouldn't like you bringing something else up. Stay on track.
You're the one who said someone can't be pro-choice and a Christian.
Why can someone be ok with killing a zygote and still be a Christian, but not if they are ok with killing an embryo?
And why couldn't a pro-choicer still be a Christian, especially if they were mistakenly convinced an abortion removed a body before it was ensouled?

reply from: B0zo

Really?
Can you be a Christian and have sex before marriage?
Can you be a Christian and believe use of contraception is fine?
Is contraception explicitly forbidden? Where does it say that?
Given that god created mankind and understands its internal workings, and given that god knows things that happened and will happen, I would think that he would explicitly forbid something like contraception if he thought it might become an issue (like he did with murder).
God tells us it is forbidden through the Church he has given us.
This Church is not based on an interpretation of the Bible because the Bible, at least the New Testament, came from within the Church. The Catholic Church wrote the book.
But some through no fault of their own do not perceive this ultimate truth of Christianity, but still believe in some core Christian beliefs, which is why they can still be considered Christians, even though they have embraced practices like contraception, because they don't know any better.
For this reason, I think it's also possible a Christian could be pro-choice, so long as the belief were based on ignorance and there was no intent to kill a human person. Though I think it's sad that this could be the case, coming from a Christian, but such is the tragedy of the Reformation and Christians who make their own rules and who have no guidance from an authority.

reply from: terry

Sorry if I've given the wrong impression, but it's fine if threads veer off-topic, as long as they are still on a topic related to the abortion issue. They just shouldn't veer too far off-topic on any issue that isn't related to abortion. And definitely no threads should be started on topics not related to abortion. I hope that's clearer. Thx.

reply from: AshMarie88

Ah, I see. Alright, thanks

reply from: terry

Sorry if I've given the wrong impression, but it's fine if threads veer off-topic, as long as they are still on a topic related to the abortion issue. They just shouldn't veer too far off-topic on any issue that isn't related to abortion. And definitely no threads should be started on topics not related to abortion. I hope that's clearer. Thx.
Since I wrote this, I have now created an "Off-Topic" category for threads that are completely off-topic. All other forum rules (such as no personal attacks) apply to that Off-Topic category, but the posts do not have to stay strictly on the topic of abortion. I assume they will usually touch on that subject, but sometimes there may be other things we want to discuss, and now there is a place for that. I hope you enjoy it!

reply from: Momof4

But you say it's ok to kill zygotes, and other Christians would say it's murder.
If you believe you can be a Christian and a zygote killer advocate, why couldn't someone else be a Chrisitan and pro-abortion?
I dunno, ask Tiller. He got blown away in church. Think of all the Catholics who've done wrong to their children and other peoples children, there are still priests out there getting sued for being dirty old men. She believes in contraception and your only means of arguing with her is by shoving your religion down her throat.
I did no such thing. I do not deny that she can be a Christian while using contraception and believing it's ok to kill zygotes. She's in error from my perpective, but ignorantly so, and not willfully.
And it's true that Catholics sin. We already know this. That's why we have Confession.
At any rate, if a Christian can be a contraceptor and a zygote killer advocate, why couldn't they also be pro-choice?
It was ashemarie who claimed someone could not be both Christian and prochoice, and that's who my questions have been directed to.
Because there is a difference between preventing a pregnancy and ending one, it's not a sin by any stretch.

reply from: Momof4

What if it is not knowingly or intentionally?
What if they truly believe a fetus has no soul until viablity?
How can a living human have no soul??? All christians believe all life comes from God. Christian proaborts can make all the excuses they want to hide the truth of this. In the end they have deluded themselves and made themselves "god". Setting oneself up as a god is not a christian belief so if they are christian and are proabortion, they are not living thier christian faith and are christian in name only. IMHO when you don't follow christian beliefs you are not christian. Again, anyone can call themselves anything, but that doesn't make it true.
Aquinas did not believe a fetus had a soul until a later stage--I forget how many days, and it was different for male and female--but it was a considerable amount of time. There are other Christians who believe in ensoulment at the time of "quickening," whatever that means.
If we can say that someone is a Christian even if they practice the evil of contraception, I don't see how we can say they are not if they believe in abortion.
Christians outside of the Church have no authority and are flying by the seat of their pants, and without that guidance can buy into contraception and abortion as legitimate.
Contraception is not evil, women are more than a womb on legs. One can be a christian in good standing while using contraception. Catholisism is not the be all and end all of christianity and it never was.

reply from: B0zo

We believe it is.
And some broke away and now make their own rules, such as divorce and remarriage, contraception, pre-marital sex, and even abortion. You would even allow for homosexual practices to be permitted by Christians.
And maybe igorance could excuse all these things and they could still be Christians.
So why couldn't a pro-choicer also be a Christian?

reply from: Momof4

We believe it is.
And some broke away and now make their own rules, such as divorce and remarriage, contraception, pre-marital sex, and even abortion. You would even allow for homosexual practices to be permitted by Christians.
And maybe igorance could excuse all these things and they could still be Christians.
So why couldn't a pro-choicer also be a Christian?
Why couldn't they? No reason why they couldn't. Tiller was a Christian who believed in his heart of hearts that he was doing good works. Religion is nohing more than man's interpretation of what their god wants. The RCC thought they were doing gods work too when they butchered druids in the Celtic countries or when they tortured in the name of god. I am non-denominational, I don't rely on a fan club for jesus. You can believe in your heart of hearts that your church is the way the truth and, the life but, that is just your belief.

reply from: B0zo

Then if Christianity can be so broadly defined, I don't see why there could not be pro-choice Christians.
I think it would be sad if there are, but I don't see how we can rule them out.

reply from: Momof4

There are pro-choice christians, your church just doesn't accept them and that's fine, it goes against their version of christianity. Someone identifying as pro-choice is not nessesarily someone who would have an abortion and therefore is perfectly capable of being a christian in good standing. Even women who have aborted are still capable of finding forgiveness and redemption.

reply from: CP

Mortal men claim to speak for God, and you believe them. That's really all you have, Bozo, and it's not exactly what I would consider a compelling argument. All the other churches make the same claim. You see yours as authoritative, but the others feel the same way about theirs. Somebody has to be wrong. How do you know it's not you?

reply from: B0zo

Mortal men claim to speak for God, and you believe them. That's really all you have, Bozo, and it's not exactly what I would consider a compelling argument. All the other churches make the same claim. You see yours as authoritative, but the others feel the same way about theirs. Somebody has to be wrong. How do you know it's not you?
I understand your perspective on this.
But my point was not to claim certainty, but to say that if we can be Christians and disagree about contraception and even about preventing zygotes from implanting, then why can't a Christian also be pro-choice?
This was all in response to Ashmarie's statement that it's impossible to be Christian and pro-choice.
But regarding Christianity, a case can be made that the Catholic Church is THE Christian Church and the others only have aspects of it, and some errors too.

reply from: Momof4

Mortal men claim to speak for God, and you believe them. That's really all you have, Bozo, and it's not exactly what I would consider a compelling argument. All the other churches make the same claim. You see yours as authoritative, but the others feel the same way about theirs. Somebody has to be wrong. How do you know it's not you?
I understand your perspective on this.
But my point was not to claim certainty, but to say that if we can be Christians and disagree about contraception and even about preventing zygotes from implanting, then why can't a Christian also be pro-choice?
This was all in response to Ashmarie's statement that it's impossible to be Christian and pro-choice.
But regarding Christianity, a case can be made that the Catholic Church is THE Christian Church and the others only have aspects of it, and some errors too.
The Catholic Church is a Christian church, not THE Christian Church. The Catholics go by things written long after Christ died and seem to believe whatever it is the Pope says. I have gone to Baptist churches and find them to be far more credible and far more in line with the new testiment while the RCC is stuck in the old testiment.

reply from: Momof4

So Jesus founded Catholicism? Riiiiight.
A Study in Absolute Catholic Power
Arthur Maricle, Ph.D.
"And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration." {Revelation 17:6}
Those who classify themselves as Christians can be divided into 2 broad groups: those who have chosen to allow the Bible to be their final authority and those who have chosen to allow men to be their final authority. For sake of simplicity, I shall refer to the first group as "Bible believing Christians." The latter group has always been best represented by Roman Catholicism, by far its largest, most powerful, and most influential component. The Roman Catholic hierarchy has always boldly stated that it is not dependent upon Scripture alone, but also accepts tradition as another pillar of truth -- and where a conflict exists, tradition receives the greater acceptance. Being its own arbiter of what is to be accepted as truth, it accepts no authority as being higher than itself. This explains why the Catholic belief system has been constantly evolving over the centuries.
This also explains why a fierce antagonism has always existed between Bible believing Christianity and Roman Catholicism. Rome's frequent spiritual innovations excites the passions of Bible believers, who react adversely to religious modifications that are at odds with the eternal, changeless Word of God. Harboring a supreme confidence in the Book, a trust which reflects their trust in the Holy Spirit who authored the Scriptures, the Bible believers boldly challenge the suppositions of the Catholic hierarchy. In the course of this spiritual warfare, Catholic people are frequently converted from trust in Rome's complex religious system to a childlike faith in the Saviour and a simple reliance on His Word. Many such converts ultimately leave the Church of Rome to join local, New Testament churches. Frequently in history, the trickle of individuals who were making this remarkable transformation turned into a flood. Such ruptures cannot go unchecked by the Catholic hierarchy. As with any bureaucracy, its primary interest is its own protection and propagation.
The nature of its response to the inroads made by spiritual challengers is dictated by its cultural surroundings. The more Catholic the culture, the more severe the response. In past centuries, when Rome's ecclesiastical power was virtually absolute throughout Europe, the intensity of the attacks by the papists upon their spiritual enemies could be equally absolute. Ignoring the injunction of II Corinthians 10:4 ("For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal..."), Catholicism built its own philosophical system to justify the use of carnal (fleshly, human, physical) means to achieve spiritual ends.
Having divorced herself from Biblical absolutes, Catholicism adopted a theology in which she sees herself as the church founded upon the Apostle Peter by Jesus Christ, and alone empowered to bring salvation to the world. Further, she believes herself assigned the daunting task of bringing Christ's kingdom to fruition on earth. With those dogmas forming her philosophical foundation, she seeks her power in the political sphere as well as the religious realm. To whatever degree she achieves political power, to that degree she feels compelled to use her secular influence as a weapon against her spiritual adversaries. Thus, down through the centuries, we see that in those countries in which Catholicism had achieved absolute power, the pope's followers have not hesitated to brutally subdue the enemies of "the Church". Although Jews, Moslems, pagans, and others have felt the wrath of Rome, her special fury has always been reserved for her bitterest and most effective challengers -- Bible believing Christians. Only as the political climate changed in recent centuries did the Catholic hierarchy see it expedient to change tactics and appear to be more tolerant. Yet, to this day we see persecution continuing in those places on the globe dominated by Catholicism. The degree of the persecution is determined by the degree of control.
To what lengths is the Catholic hierarchy prepared to go in its drive to repress opposition and achieve its goal of instituting the kingdom of Christ on earth? To find the answer, one must look to the pages of history.
When the Roman Catholic Church was founded by the pagan Roman Emperor Constantine at the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D., it immediately achieved expansive influence at all levels of the imperial government. As Bible believing Christians separated themselves from the Church of Rome, which they saw as apostate, they represented a formidable potential threat to the official new imperial religion. Persecution in varying degrees of severity was instituted over the centuries following.
By the 11th century, in their zeal to establish Christ's kingdom, the Roman popes ("pope" is an ecclesiastical office that is the very antithesis of the New Testament ideal of a local church pastor) began utilizing a new tool -- the Crusades. At first, the Crusades had as their object the conquering of Jerusalem and the "Holy Land". Along the crusaders' paths, thousands of innocent civilians (especially Jews) were raped, robbed, and slaughtered. In time, however, the crusade concept was altered to crush spiritual opposition within Europe itself. In other words, armies were raised with the intent of massacring whole communities of Bible believing Christians. One such group of Bible believing Christians were known as the Albigenses.
[Pope] Innocent III believed that Bible believing dissidents were worse than infidels (Saracens, Moslems, and Turks), for they threatened the unity of ... Europe. So Innocent III sponsored 4 "crusades" to exterminate the Albigenses. Innocent (what a name!) called upon Louis VII to do his killing for him, and he also enjoined Raymond VI to assist him.
The Cistercian order of Catholic monks were then commissioned to preach all over France, Flanders, and Germany for the purpose of raising an army sufficient to kill the Bible believers. All who volunteered to take part in these mass murders were promised that they would receive the same reward as those who had sallied forth against the Moslems (i.e., forgiveness of sins and eternal life).
The Albigenses were referred to in Pope Innocent's Sunday morning messages as "servants of the old serpent". Innocent promised the killers a heavenly kingdom if they took up their swords against unarmed populaces.
In July of 1209 A.D. an army of orthodox Catholics attacked Beziers and murdered 60,000 unarmed civilians, killing men, women, and children. The whole city was sacked, and when someone complained that Catholics were being killed as well as "heretics", the papal legates told them to go on killing and not to worry about it for "the Lord knows His own."
At Minerve, 14,000 Christians were put to death in the flames, and ears, noses, and lips of the "heretics" were cut off by the "faithful."A
This is but one example from the long and sordid history of Catholic atrocities committed against their bitter enemies, the Bible believing Christians. Much worse treatment of Bible believers was forthcoming during that stage of bloody Catholic history known as the Inquisition.
It is vital, though, that we here define what is meant by the term "heretic". According to Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary, this is a heretic: "One who holds or advocates controversial opinions, esp. one who publicly opposes the officially accepted dogma of the Roman Catholic, Church." Or, as one author has put it, "Heresy, to a Catholic, is anti-Catholic truth found in the Bible."B Another summarized the official stance as this: "Every citizen in the empire was required to be a Roman Catholic. Failure to give wholehearted allegiance to the pope was considered treason against the state punishable by death."C
From 1200 to 1500 the long series of Papal ordinances on the Inquisition, ever increasing in severity and cruelty, and their whole policy towards heresy, runs on without a break. It is a rigidly consistent system of legislation: every Pope confirms and improves upon the devices of his predecessor. All is directed to the one end, of completely uprooting every difference of belief... The Inquisition ... contradicted the simplest principles of Christian justice and love to our neighbor, and would have been rejected with universal horror in the ancient Church.D
Pope Alexander IV established the Office of the Inquisition within Italy in 1254. The first inquisitor was Dominic, a Spaniard who was the founder of the Dominican order of monks.
The Inquisition was purely and uniquely a Catholic institution; it was founded far the express purpose of exterminating every human being in Europe who differed from Roman Catholic beliefs and practices. It spread out from France, Milan, Geneva, Aragon, and Sardinia to Poland (14th century) and then to Bohemia and Rome (1543). It was not abolished in Spain until 1820.E
The Inquisition was a terrifying fact of life to those who lived in areas where it was in force. That domain would eventually include not only much of Europe, but also the far-flung colonies of Europe's Catholic powers.
The Inquisition, led by the Dominicans and the Jesuits, was usually early on the scene following each territorial acquisition of the Spanish and Portuguese empires in the 16th and 17th centuries. The methods used, which all too often were similar to those used by Serra in California or the Nazi-backed Ustashis in Croatia, sowed the seeds of reaction and aversion that have proved to be a barrier for true missionaries ever since.
Albert Close writes of the Jesuit mission to Indonesia in 1559 that "conversion was wonderfully shortened by the cooperation of the colonial governors whose militia offered' the natives the choice of the musket ball or of baptism."
Everywhere it existed, the "Holy Office" of the Inquisition spread its tentacles of fear.
When an inquisitor arrived in an area he called for reports of anyone suspected of heresy, sometimes offering rewards to spies who would report suspected heretics. Those suspected were imprisoned to await trials. The trials were held in secret and the inquisitor acted as judge, prosecutor, and jury. The accused had no lawyer. It was often simpler to confess to heresy than to defend oneself, especially since torture was often employed until the accused was ready to confess.
Because church and state had not been kept separate, the church powers could call upon the government to use its power against the convicted heretics. Anyone who fell back into heresy after repentance was turned over by the Inquisition to the regular government to be put to death. Most of those condemned to death were burned at the stake, but some were beaten to death or drowned.
The Inquisition was called the sanctum officium (Holy Office) because the church considered its work so praiseworthy.F
Even after the death of a victim, his punishment was not ended. The property of condemned heretics was confiscated, leaving his family in poverty.
It is important here to emphasize Rome's role in the brutality of the Inquisition. Roman Catholic apologists are quick to point out that it was the state that put heretics to death. This is an alibi meant to excuse the Vatican's role in the atrocities. However, Dollinger, the leading 19th century Catholic historian, stated: "The binding force of the laws against heretics lay not in the authority of secular princes, but in the sovereign dominion of life and death over all Christians claimed by the Popes as God's representatives on earth, as [Pope] Innocent III expressly states it."G
In other words, the secular arm of the state acted only as it was pressured to do so by the popes. Even kings who hesitated to commit genocide on their own populaces were spurred into action by their fear of papal excommunication or subversive Catholic activities within their kingdoms.
Dollinger continues: "It was the Popes who compelled bishops and priests to condemn the heterodox to torture, confiscation of their goods, imprisonment, and death, and to enforce the execution of this sentence on the civil authorities, under pain of excommunication,"H
Will Durant informs us that in 1521 Leo X issued the bull Honestis which "ordered the excommunication of any officials, and the suspension of religious services in any community, that refused to execute, without examination or revision, the sentences of the inquisitors." Consider Clement V's rebuke of King Edward II: "We hear that you forbid torture as contrary to the laws of your land. But no state law can override canon law, our law. Therefore I command you at once to submit those men to torture.I
The methods used by the Inquisition ranged from the barbaric to the bizarre.
When the inquisitors swept into a town an "Edict of Faith" was issued requiring everyone to reveal any heresy of which they had knowledge. Those who concealed a heretic came under the curse of the Church and the inquisitors' wrath. Informants would approach the inquisitors' lodgings under cover of night and were rewarded for information. No one arrested was ever acquitted.
Torture was considered to be essential because the church felt duty-bound to identify from the lips of the victims themselves any deviance from sound doctrine. Presumably, the more excruciating the torture, the more likely that the truth could be wrung from reluctant lips. The inquisitors were determined that it was "better for a hundred innocent people to die than for one heretic to go free".
"Heretics" were committed to the flames because the popes believed the Bible forbade Christians to shed blood. The victims of the Inquisition exceeded by hundreds of thousands the number of Christians and Jews who had suffered under pagan Roman emperors.J
This wanton slaughter of innocent people was justified by Catholic theologians such as "Saint". Thomas Aquinas, who said, "If forgers and other malefactors are put to death by the secular power, there is much more reason for putting to death one convicted of heresy." In 1815, Comte Le Maistre defended the Inquisition by advocating: "The Inquisition is, in its very nature, good, mild, and preservative. It is the universal, indelible character of every ecclesiastical institution; you see it in Rome, and you can see it wherever the true Church has power."K Such a viewpoint could only be expressed by one so brainwashed as to think that the cruel, torturous deaths of dissidents to Catholicism is preferable to the survival and propagation of those who would challenge the Vatican's authority.
Yet, not all Romanists have been comfortable with the totalitarian nature of their "church". Even Jean Antoine Llorente, secretary to the Spanish Inquisition from 1790-92, was to admit: "The horrid conduct of this Holy Office weakened the power and diminished the population of Spain by arresting the progress of arts, sciences, industry, and commerce, and by compelling multitudes of families to abandon the kingdom; by instigating the expulsion of the Jews and the Moors, and by immolating on its flaming shambles more than 300,000 victims."L Historian Will Durant stated, "Compared with the persecution of heresy in Europe from 1227 to 1492, the persecution of Christians by Romans in the first 3 centuries after Christ was a mild and humane procedure. Making every allowance required by an historian and permitted to a Christian, we must rank the Inquisition, along with the wars and persecutions of our time, as among the darkest blots on the record of mankind, revealing a ferocity unknown in any beast."M
Catholic apologists attempt to downplay the significance of the Inquisition, saying that relatively few people were ever directly affected. While controversy rages around the number of victims that can be claimed by the Inquisition, conservative estimates easily place the count in the millions. This does not include the equally vast numbers of human beings slaughtered in the various wars and other conflicts instigated over the centuries by Vatican political intrigues. Nor does it take it account the Holocaust wrought upon the Jews by the Nazis, led by Roman Catholics who used their own religious history to justify their modern excesses. As one secular history explains, "As the Germans instituted a bureaucracy of organized murder, so too did Torquemada, the first Grand Inquisitor, a worthy of predecessor of Heydrich and Eichmann."N
Because her basic doctrinal premises remain in place, Rome can yet again rise up against her spiritual enemies at some future date when she again wields exclusive ecclesiastical control of a region. In fact, the "Holy Office" of the Inquisition still exists within the Vatican (known today as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith), awaiting the day in which it can stamp out "heresy". As recently as 1938, a popular Catholic weekly declared:
Heresy is an awful crime against God, and those who start a heresy are more guilty than they who are traitors to the civil government. If the state has a right to punish treason with death, the principle is the same that concedes to the spiritual authority the power of life and death over the archtraitor.O
The Inquisition proved how Catholicism will react when it has possession of absolute power. Is it any wonder that in the 1880s, Dr. H. Grattan Guinness preached the following:
I see the great Apostasy, I see the desolation of Christendom, I see the smoking ruins, I see the reign of monsters; I see those vice-gods, that Gregory VII, that Innocent III, that Boniface Vlll, that Alexander Vl, that Gregory XIII, that Pius IX; I see their long succession, I hear their insufferable blasphemies, I see their abominable lives; I see them worshipped by blinded generations, bestowing hollow benedictions, bartering away worthless promises of heaven; I see their liveried slaves, their shaven priests, their celibate confessors; I see the infamous confessional, the ruined women, the murdered innocents; I hear the lying absolutions, the dying groans; I hear the cries of the victims; I hear the anathemas, the curses, the thunders of the interdicts; I see the racks, the dungeons, the stakes; I see that inhuman Inquisition, those fires of Smithfield, those butcheries of St. Bartholomew, that Spanish Armada, those unspeakable dragonnades, that endless train of wars, that dreadful multitude of massacres. I see it all, and in the name of the ruin it has brought in the Church and in the world, in the name of the truth it has denied, the temple it has defiled, the God it has blasphemed, the souls it has destroyed; in the name of the millions it has deluded, the millions it has slaughtered, the millions it has damned; with holy confessors, with noble reformers, with innumerable martyrs, with the saints of ages, I denounce it as the masterpiece of Satan, as the body and soul and essence of antichrist."P
The challenge I give to Bible believing Christians is to respect the heritage we have been given by those who suffered for Biblical truth, that we may be prepared to suffer ourselves. Ours is the generation that may yet again be afflicted for the faith once delivered to the saints. If such is to be our privilege, let us face our trials with this promise of our Lord fresh upon our hearts: "Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." {Matthew 5:10}
The challenge I give to Roman Catholics is to take up the New Testament of the Bible and allow the Holy Spirit of God to speak to your hearts. If a Catholic remains skeptical about this brief treatise on the Inquisition, he is certainly welcome to examine for himself the record of history. If he remains unmoved by my conclusions, he is welcome to draw his own. But of far greater import is his need to examine the teachings of his church in the light of God's Word. Jesus leaves you with this warning: "He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day." {John 12:48} You to whom the Bible was so accessible will not be able to plead ignorance in that terrible day of judgment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Close Window
Footnotes:
A Peter S. Ruckman, Ph.D.; The History of the New Testament Church (Bible Believers Bookstore; Pensacola, Florida; 1989)
B Ibid.
C Dave Hunt; A Woman Rides the Beast (Harvest House Publishers; Eugene, Oregon; 1994)
D J.H. Ignaz von Dollinger; The Pope and the Council (London, 1869); as cited in Dave Hunt, A Woman Rides the Beast
E Peter S. Ruckman, Ph.D.; op cit.
F Laura l-licks, editor; The Modern Age: The History of the World in Christian Perspective, Vol. 11 (A Beka Books Publications; Pensacola, Florida; 1981)
G J.H. Ignaz von Dollinger; op cit.
H Ibid.
I Dave Hunt; op cit.; quotations from Will Durant; The Story of Civilization, Vol. V (Simon and Schuster, 1950); and ibid., Vol. 4
J Dave Hunt; op cit.
K Comte Le Maistre, letters on the Spanish Inquisition, as cited in R.W. Thompson, The Papacy and the Civil Power (New York, 1876); as cited in Dave Hunt, A Woman Rides the Beast
L Jean Antoine Llorentine, History of the Inquistion; as cited in R.W. Thompson, The Papacy and the Civil Power (New York, 1876); as cited in Dave Hunt, A Woman Rides the Beast
M Will Durant; The Story of Civilization, Vol. IV (Simon and Schuster, 1950); as cited in Dave Hunt, A Woman Rides the Beast
N Ward Rutherford; Genocide: The Jews in Europe 1939-45 (Ballantyne Books, Inc.; New York, New York; 1973)
O The Tablet, November 5, 1938; as cited in Dave Hunt, A Woman Rides the Beast
P H. Grattan Guinness, D.D., Romanism and the Reformation; Focus Christian Ministries; Lewes, Sussex; as cited in Michael de Semlyen, All Roads Lead to Rome?

reply from: Tam

Well, I don't know that I'm qualified to say what is a sin and what is not a sin, but I can at least say what I personally think is ethical and unethical. It is pretty similar to what you just said, so that's why I am quoting you.
Anyway, I would say that the huge difference is this: in some situations, there are two lives, and in other situations, there are three lives. The ethics of what goes on between consenting adults in the privacy of a bedroom is not a topic I care to embark on here. What I consider the crux of this issue is the ethics of what goes on when there are two parents and one unborn child. Notice that I am not using the words "pregnancy" or "conception" because there is so much confusion and disagreement about issues surrounding those words, and I want to be crystal clear in what I am saying here.
When there are two parents plus an unborn child, and the parent(s) end the life of that child intentionally, I consider that to be the ethical equivalent of ending the life of a born child. I am not a big fan of our legal system and how it handles injustice, but I do consider ending an unborn child's life to be a profound injustice--regardless of whether or not implantation has occurred.
I can't imagine what is the magic of implantation that suddenly changes a child's life into something worth protecting. Implantation takes place over a period of time, also. I am interested to know, from those who consider it to be different, ethically, to end the life of a child pre-implantation, where the line is drawn in your opinion. Is it as soon as the embryo touches the uterine wall, or is it when implantation is complete, or at some point in between (and if so, what point)? More importantly, why are you drawing this line on a child's life? I don't mean hypothetical situations or probability charts. I mean, a general ethic about unborn children, and their right to life. I just want to understand why this dissent is happening.
PS I mean from a Christian perspective, but am also interested in other answers if there are any who are not Christian but care to respond.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics