# A devout Christian's view on the religious right



## noodles (Apr 6, 2007)

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/04/martin.jesus/index.html

I was looking for something to quote, but the whole editorial is great. It's nice to see someone pissed off about their religion being hijacked.


----------



## distressed_romeo (Apr 6, 2007)

The story about the black minister being asked to march in an anti-abortion rally, but then being told that crack houses pedalling to the black community were 'his problem' is extremely telling.


----------



## fathead (Apr 6, 2007)

That's a pretty good read. Highly polarized issues sells seats.


----------



## Matt Crooks (Apr 6, 2007)

Thank you for the link.


----------



## skattabrain (Apr 6, 2007)

noodles ... i know what they're saying and getting at with that link ... but for a Christian, and i mean a true Christian ... it's very hard to find any issue more important than abortion ... if which they, er ... we, view as the slaughter of innocence. I'm not sparking an abortion debate here on ss.org ... i just want to put in my 2 cents regarding the matter.

a community ripped apart by crack is that communities fault ... it's horrific, sad and in dire need of fixing ... but no one is putting a gun to your head to smoke crack ... but an unborn baby who has done nothing, completely innocent, has no choice. it's a distant 2nd to abortion in a Christians perspective.

so i think the 'feel good' christians aren't only fooling themselves here, they are giving their name a bad name in the eyes of those who don't believe.

that said, no one is perfect, being a Christian doesn't make you perfect and unfortunately many Christians don't know this and many non-Christians use this as a basis for Christianity being frivolous ... they base their opinions not on the Scripture thats been passed down through the ages, but instead they base their opinions on the actions of men.

religion being hijacked? you have it exactly backwards.


----------



## distressed_romeo (Apr 6, 2007)

skattabrain said:


> noodles ... i know what they're saying and getting at with that link ... but for a Christian, and i mean a true Christian ... it's very hard to find any issue more important than abortion ... if which they, er ... we, view as the slaughter of innocence. I'm not sparking an abortion debate here on ss.org ... i just want to put in my 2 cents regarding the matter.
> 
> a community ripped apart by crack is that communities fault ... it's horrific, sad and in dire need of fixing ... but no one is putting a gun to your head to smoke crack ... but an unborn baby who has done nothing, completely innocent, has no choice. it's a distant 2nd to abortion in a Christians perspective.
> 
> ...



Whether a foetus suffers during abortion is still highly debateable, whatever some may have you believe, whereas a community getting torn apart by drug addiction is facing a very real and immediate problem. Should a family with one or more members addicted to crack put their problems on hold until everyone else is finished arguing the abortion debate?


----------



## nitelightboy (Apr 6, 2007)

_Did Jesus spend his time focusing on all that he didn't like, or did Jesus raise the consciousness of the people to understand love, compassion and teach them about following the will of God?_


I think that is brilliant. And Greg, it's a point that Christians seem to have forgotten all about. I've been a strong believer for the majority of my life. My grandfather was a minister for 50 years, and I have been rather active in my studies of the Bible for a long time. And I have to say that the way Christians attack abortion and the people who get them is simply the exact opposite of what the religion teaches. We aren't supposed to judge others or their actions, but rather allow them to deal with the decisions that they make. They have the ability to repent if they want, or the ability to look the other way and not believe in what Christians do. If you don't believe the same things that others do, then how can you believe that something is wrong. And isn't that one of the reasons why the Pilgrims first left England? To be able to believe what they want? I know there were other factors as well, but this country was founded based on religious freedom and we should allow others to have that instead of forcing our beliefs down their throats and judging them, like Christianity teaches us NOT to do.


----------



## skattabrain (Apr 6, 2007)

distressed_romeo said:


> Whether a foetus suffers during abortion is still highly debateable, whatever some may have you believe, whereas a community getting torn apart by drug addiction is facing a very real and immediate problem. Should a family with one or more members addicted to crack put their problems on hold until everyone else is finished arguing the abortion debate?



give me a break ... there is no reason for not taking action here ... everyone has a special purpose in their life and mission ... but let's not belittle the killing of innocence.

you believe whatever you want ... this about what Christains think, was it not?



nitelightboy said:


> _Did Jesus spend his time focusing on all that he didn't like, or did Jesus raise the consciousness of the people to understand love, compassion and teach them about following the will of God?_
> 
> 
> I think that is brilliant. And Greg, it's a point that Christians seem to have forgotten all about. I've been a strong believer for the majority of my life. My grandfather was a minister for 50 years, and I have been rather active in my studies of the Bible for a long time. And I have to say that the way Christians attack abortion and the people who get them is simply the exact opposite of what the religion teaches. We aren't supposed to judge others or their actions, but rather allow them to deal with the decisions that they make. They have the ability to repent if they want, or the ability to look the other way and not believe in what Christians do. If you don't believe the same things that others do, then how can you believe that something is wrong. And isn't that one of the reasons why the Pilgrims first left England? To be able to believe what they want? I know there were other factors as well, but this country was founded based on religious freedom and we should allow others to have that instead of forcing our beliefs down their throats and judging them, like Christianity teaches us NOT to do.



i do agree with you ... we have forgotten. you can do whatever you and it's the ditch you dig ... smoking crack is a ditch "you" dig. getting vacuumed out of a womb isn't something you do, it's something that is done to you ... that's the basis of my point ... and thats why i have a hard time with his view that somehow it's not noble to feel that way.



distressed_romeo said:


> Whether a foetus suffers during abortion is still highly debateable, whatever some may have you believe, whereas a community getting torn apart by drug addiction is facing a very real and immediate problem. Should a family with one or more members addicted to crack put their problems on hold until everyone else is finished arguing the abortion debate?



that argument isn't even the point though romeo and it's a very cold point at that ... it's less about the pain and more about the death. i mean, it's not really an argument about electric chair versus injection ... and more about do we have the right to use the death penalty.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Apr 6, 2007)

Interesting. I've felt this way for a long time, and while still a believer in God, I've basically abandoned Christianity for many of these reasons. Because I feel it abandoned Jesus.

It's telling that's Jesus' only real enemies in his day were the conservative religious/political leaders of his community, who had their own pet "issues" they used to maximize division and control. In fact, we like to paint Jesus as this peaceful, benevolent guy, but mainstream fails to tell the story that he was essentially a pissed off rebel. He actually went into the temple, and physically drove out (read - kicked ass) the people using faith in God as a means to making fat bank.

That's the real issue. Money, power, control. It's what Christianity is all about. Forget the Gospel of liberation, comfort, and restoration.


----------



## distressed_romeo (Apr 6, 2007)

skattabrain said:


> give me a break ... there is no reason for not taking action here ... everyone has a special purpose in their life and mission ... but let's not belittle the killing of innocence.
> 
> you believe whatever you want ... this about what Christains think, was it not?
> 
> i do agree with you ... we have forgotten. you can do whatever you and it's the ditch you dig ... smoking crack is a ditch "you" dig. getting vacuumed out of a womb isn't something you do, it's something that is done to you ... that's the basis of my point ... and thats why i have a hard time with his view that somehow it's not noble to feel that way.



When a community develops a drug problem, it's not just the addicts who will suffer (and I agree that smoking crack is a decision they make for themselves incidentally) it's their families and loved ones as well, as anyone who's ever known a person with an addiction will know all too well.


----------



## skattabrain (Apr 6, 2007)

distressed_romeo said:


> When a community develops a drug problem, it's not just the addicts who will suffer (and I agree that smoking crack is a decision they make for themselves incidentally) it's their families and loved ones as well, as anyone who's ever known a person with an addiction will know all too well.


i agree ... it's not pretty, it's destructive, it causes other crimes too.



The Dark Wolf said:


> It's telling that's Jesus' only real enemies in his day were the conservative religious/political leaders of his community, who had their own pet "issues" they used to maximize division and control. In fact, we like to paint Jesus as this peaceful, benevolent guy, but mainstream fails to tell the story that he was essentially a pissed off rebel. He actually went into the temple, and physically drove out (read - kicked ass) the people using faith in God as a means to making fat bank.



great point


----------



## distressed_romeo (Apr 6, 2007)

skattabrain said:


> that argument isn't even the point though romeo and it's a very cold point at that ... it's less about the pain and more about the death. i mean, it's not really an argument about electric chair versus injection ... and more about do we have the right to use the death penalty.



That was kinda the point I was trying to make. We still don't know for sure the exact point a foetus becomes sentient, so is it more important to help the potential of a life, or those existing lives that are already suffering?
I really don't think you can compare abortion to the use of the death penalty at the moment.


----------



## skattabrain (Apr 6, 2007)

The Dark Wolf said:


> That's the real issue. Money, power, control. It's what Christianity is all about. Forget the Gospel of liberation, comfort, and restoration.



there are serious problems ... but i think that argument has always been a bit exaggerated ... and i'm a catholic too! lol

but do we leave the country because we don't like bush? not really a great example ... if hillary gets the vote i'll want to leave, ha ha.

but seriously ... if you do believe but it's the ones around you that annoy you, it is still not a good reason to abandon what you initially believe in.

if you hate all the popular 7 string guitarists does that make a 7 string guitar bad and will you stop playing it?


----------



## distressed_romeo (Apr 6, 2007)

skattabrain said:


> there are serious problems ... but i think that argument has always been a bit exaggerated ... and i'm a catholic too! lol
> 
> but do we leave the country because we don't like bush? not really a great example ... if hillary gets the vote i'll want to leave, ha ha.
> 
> ...



Is belief in God the same as faith in an institution though?


----------



## skattabrain (Apr 6, 2007)

distressed_romeo said:


> That was kinda the point I was trying to make. We still don't know for sure the exact point a foetus becomes sentient, so is it more important to help the potential of a life, or those existing lives that are already suffering?



well, if you are asking me i personally will say the fetus has the greater need.


----------



## D-EJ915 (Apr 6, 2007)

One of the problems is, that the crazy feminist hos always run after the pro-life guys (who are crazy too sometimes) and nobody really thinks about people just being loving and kind to others, so that's why people are like "christians don't love others anymore" ... no I think it's more of a case of nobody takes notice of it.



distressed_romeo said:


> Is belief in God the same as faith in an institution though?


I guess you could say you have faith in an institution, but they are different concepts. I think a better way of putting it would be trusting an institution. I guess you could say faith is trust in something unknown, so you really can't have faith in a physical thing like a church or something else at least the way I think of it.


----------



## Drew (Apr 6, 2007)

skattabrain said:


> a community ripped apart by crack is that communities fault ... it's horrific, sad and in dire need of fixing ... but no one is putting a gun to your head to smoke crack ... but an unborn baby who has done nothing, completely innocent, has no choice. it's a distant 2nd to abortion in a Christians perspective.



With all due respect, that's an _*INCREDIBLY*_ ethnocentric viewpoint. It's very easy to stand there and say "no one's making them do it" and feel like you're just doing the right thing or some crap like that, but to do so misses the larger reality which is, unlike you, no one's really giving them much reason to NOT do it, and no one's giving them any reason to do much of _*anything*_ else. 

"Training Day" was an absolutely shitty movie in virtually every respect, but there was one scene in particular that really stuck with me. Some kid in the "ghetto" section of town had just been busted for dealing drugs, and the cop was giving him crap for being lowlife scum for dealing drugs. He comes back with, paraphrasing, "oh, and what the fuck else can I do? There's no work in my neighborhood, no one will hire me anywhere else, and every day two or three cars full of college kids from the school on the other side of town pull up next to me and say 'hey man, do you have any weed?' simply because of the color of my skin and where I life. After a while, when you have no ther options, you just can't fight it any more." I'm slaughtering what was actually a rather powerful line, but you get the gist - saying "they chose to do it, so it's their fault" ignores the fact that most of them didn't have a fuck of a lot of other choices. 

Honestly, how many sucessful Wall Street stockbrokers do you know hooked on crack? How many wealthy doctors get hooked on crack because they wake up one day and decide golf or sailing on their multi-million-dollar yaght just isn't giving them the same rush anymore? If you can honestly look at the situation and conclude that crack use is as prevalent as it is amongst socially and economic disadvantaged minorities because "they choose to do it" or "they're too weak to say no" and not because the wealthy white middle class community aggressively stamps it out but is all too willing to turn a blind eye to the problem elsewhere, then you're fucking delusional.

If you're pro-life, that's your own business, but to trivialize every other evil in the world simply because it's not a major problem for your own particular ethnic and class group is ethnocentricism of the worst order.


----------



## skattabrain (Apr 6, 2007)

distressed_romeo said:


> Is belief in God the same as faith in an institution though?



No, belief in God trumps that. But that's what a Christian is ... i think you mean a baptist or a catholic.

I'm a Christian first, Catholic 2nd.



Drew said:


> then you're fucking delusional.



nice

no drew, i'm not saying that so cut and dry ... i'm simply trying to state that i think abortion is "more" of a problem. why is that so hard for you guys to understand how i feel about that? but you're sounding pretty socialist to me.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Apr 6, 2007)

distressed_romeo said:


> Is belief in God the same as faith in an institution though?



My point exactly. Thanks DR.  Dogmatic adherence to religious traditions (which in my view have become incredibly corrupted by money and politics. Modern evangelical Christianity is a multi-billion dollar industry nowadays, with vast political power) and interpretations of a +++ thousand year old book as infallible do not equate with my personal belief in or about a supreme being who guides my life.


----------



## skattabrain (Apr 6, 2007)

i'll be right back, i have to go wiki "ethnocentric" lol


----------



## distressed_romeo (Apr 6, 2007)

skattabrain said:


> well, if you are asking me i personally will say the fetus has the greater need.



Then we'll have to agree to disagree on that point I'm afraid. I'm not saying the foetus doesn't have rights, but as far as I'm concerned, 'living' human beings have more. It's not pleasant, but it's the only pragmatic view possible given our current level of knowledge.


----------



## Drew (Apr 6, 2007)

skattabrain said:


> no drew, i'm not saying that so cut and dry ... i'm simply trying to state that i think abortion is "more" of a problem. why is that so hard for you guys to understand how i feel about that? but you're sounding pretty socialist to me.



You're totally missing my point. Your belief that abortion is "more" of a problem than anything facing the world right now - drug use, slavery, prostitution, genocide, etc - is completely a product of your social class and ethnicity. 

The _entire fucking point_ of the story posted here was that religion is being used to push a specific class viewpoint, and when people outside that structure try to expand religion, in principle a very good thing, to it's full extent rather than focusing on one or two issues deemed important by white middle class america these "religious leaders" basically say, "piss off, that's your own problem." Frankly, you're living, breathing proof of that, and you can't even see that, can you?

Socialist? Just because I'm aware that the world is a very different place depending on the advantages or disadvantages that come with your class or race? Fuck it, if that's what you mean by "socialist" then that's a badge I'll wear proudly.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Apr 6, 2007)

BTW, 'Training Day' kicked ass!


----------



## distressed_romeo (Apr 6, 2007)

Drew said:


> You're totally missing my point. Your belief that abortion is "more" of a problem than anything facing the world right now - drug use, slavery, prostitution, genocide, etc - is completely a product of your social class and ethnicity.



 Regardless of your personal view of abortion, which is entirely your concern, is there really nothing more important going on in the world? You talked of not belittling the 'slaughter of the innocent', but how many innocents have been killed in the Middle East this century?


----------



## Drew (Apr 6, 2007)

skattabrain said:


> i'll be right back, i have to go wiki "ethnocentric" lol



A world viewpoint that treats your personal race and class as absolute and fails to consider that there are other ethnicities and classes out there. I.e - a white, middle-class man discounting crack use as not nearly as big an issue as abortion because only poor black people, and not white middle class people, would _ever_ use crack.


----------



## Drew (Apr 6, 2007)

The Dark Wolf said:


> BTW, 'Training Day' kicked ass!



It felt too contrived, but it had moments, the scene I was referring to being one of them.


----------



## Mastodon (Apr 6, 2007)

skattabrain said:


> i do agree with you ... we have forgotten. you can do whatever you and it's the ditch you dig ... smoking crack is a ditch "you" dig. getting vacuumed out of a womb isn't something you do, it's something that is done to you ... that's the basis of my point ... and thats why i have a hard time with his view that somehow it's not noble to feel that way.



What about infants born to drug addicted mothers? They certainly did not choose to be born addicted to crack and with several terrible birth defects.

Wouldn't it be better for these babies to not have to experience these things at all than to let them be born already addicted, physically and mentally deformed to a mother who most likely cannot care for them. The cycle would most likely just end up being perpetuated.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Apr 6, 2007)

Drew said:


> It felt too contrived, but it had moments, the scene I was referring to being one of them.



I reject your reality, and assert my own. It kicked ass! 


BTW, I'm actually starting to get into Infinite Joke.  *Derail mode off*


----------



## skattabrain (Apr 6, 2007)

Mastodon said:


> What about infants born to drug addicted mothers? They certainly did not choose to be born addicted to crack and with several terrible birth defects.
> 
> Wouldn't it be better for these babies to not have to experience these things at all than to let them be born already addicted, physically and mentally deformed to a mother who most likely cannot care for them. The cycle would most likely just end up being perpetuated.



yeah, that's a sucky situation and it's not an easy one to answer ... but let me ask you this ... if you got all fucked up, burnt to near death ... in a bed for the rest of your life and blind ... would you rather live or die?



Drew said:


> A world viewpoint that treats your personal race and class as absolute and fails to consider that there are other ethnicities and classes out there. I.e - a white, middle-class man discounting crack use as not nearly as big an issue as abortion because only poor black people, and not white middle class people, would _ever_ use crack.



i don't feel that way and was certainly not looking at it as "that's their problem, not mine".


----------



## Drew (Apr 6, 2007)

The Dark Wolf said:


> BTW, I'm actually starting to get into Infinite Joke.  *Derail mode off*


----------



## skattabrain (Apr 6, 2007)

distressed_romeo said:


> Regardless of your personal view of abortion, which is entirely your concern, is there really nothing more important going on in the world? You talked of not belittling the 'slaughter of the innocent', but how many innocents have been killed in the Middle East this century?



yeah, that's horrible too man ... it's kinda the same thing


----------



## Drew (Apr 6, 2007)

skattabrain said:


> yeah, that's a sucky situation and it's not an easy one to answer ... but let me ask you this ... if you got all fucked up, burnt to near death ... in a bed for the rest of your life and blind ... would you rather live or die?



Actually, I have formal "Do not recessitate" papers signed. Your point? I'm not sure what this has to do with the debate.




scatabrain said:


> i don't feel that way and was certainly not looking at it as "that's their problem, not mine".





skattabrain said:


> a community ripped apart by crack is that communities fault ...


----------



## distressed_romeo (Apr 6, 2007)

skattabrain said:


> yeah, that's horrible too man ... it's kinda the same thing



 I'm sorry, but that verges on being insulting to all the people who've been killed in warfare or acts of terrorism. PETA use the same sort of logic when they compare the number of Jews killed in concentration camps to the number of chickens killed on battery farms.


----------



## D-EJ915 (Apr 6, 2007)

Mastodon said:


> What about infants born to drug addicted mothers? They certainly did not choose to be born addicted to crack and with several terrible birth defects.
> 
> Wouldn't it be better for these babies to not have to experience these things at all than to let them be born already addicted, physically and mentally deformed to a mother who most likely cannot care for them. The cycle would most likely just end up being perpetuated.


I feel that abortion is not an option. The word "abortion" in itself pretty much explains my view on it, I think it's pretty terrible and horrifying. Necessary termination of a pregnancy can be important in certain cases, in those it is NOT an option but a necessity. I think having the option to have a pregnancy ended for personal reasons is cheap. I'm not hardcore pro-life, but I'm definitely not pro-choice.


----------



## skattabrain (Apr 6, 2007)

romeo ... the viewpoint in which i'm talking about it is a life is a life. a fetus is not a chicken.

i'm sorry i clearly missed the point of that article. it is tragic that this minister wasn't shown any support because it was "his local issue". i'm a scanner by habit and it gets my in trouble at times, so far that i'm sorry.

i feel how i feel regarding abortion, that won't change. but clearly i missed the point of this article. i thought it was designed to push the abortion issue into the background of Christian debate but it's nto doign that i was reread it.


----------



## Drew (Apr 6, 2007)

skattabrain said:


> romeo ... the viewpoint in which i'm talking about it is a life is a life. a fetus is not a chicken.



but the life of a drug addict isn't the life of a baby, because it's their community's problem, not yours.


----------



## skattabrain (Apr 6, 2007)

drew, you're right, i can't argue with that. i didn't consider that, although i'll guess that it happens less than abortions do.



Drew said:


> but the life of a drug addict isn't the life of a baby, because it's their community's problem, not yours.



but you don't need to paint me as someone who doesn't care about others ... that is so far from how i am.


----------



## Drew (Apr 6, 2007)

skattabrain said:


> i'm sorry i clearly missed the point of that article. it is tragic that this minister wasn't shown any support because it was "his local issue". i'm a scanner by habit and it gets my in trouble at times, so far that i'm sorry.
> 
> i feel how i feel regarding abortion, that won't change. but clearly i missed the point of this article. i thought it was designed to push the abortion issue into the background of Christian debate but it's nto doign that i was reread it.



No, the point of the article was that too many Christians consider Abortion and Homosexuality, two popular political issues, to be the only two problems worth dealing with , while many of the other religious issues have been marginalized by the white middle class majority within the church to be "other people's problems" and "local race issues," and not within the scope of religion. 

Arguing abortion is more important than any other problem facing people just feeds this logic.


----------



## Drew (Apr 6, 2007)

Actually, I'd argue the contrary, that more people are enslaved by various substances than have abortions any given year. We just turn a blind eye when it's no one we know.


----------



## Mastodon (Apr 6, 2007)

To answer your question, it depends on the amount of pain. I've heard that it's fucking excruciating. It also depends on how much functionality I have left. I'd ask myself if I could still write music and whether the pain is worth enduring for that one thing.



D-EJ915 said:


> I feel that abortion is not an option. The word "abortion" in itself pretty much explains my view on it, I think it's pretty terrible and horrifying. Necessary termination of a pregnancy can be important in certain cases, in those it is NOT an option but a necessity. I think having the option to have a pregnancy ended for personal reasons is cheap. I'm not hardcore pro-life, but I'm definitely not pro-choic



Abortions are expensive. I really don't think that there are women who go around having sex all willy-nilly with the "oh if I get pregnant I'll just get an abortion" mentality.



skattabrain said:


> romeo ... the viewpoint in which i'm talking about it is a life is a life. a fetus is not a chicken.



I think *you've* forgotten the entire point of this thread.

From your viewpoint these things are all equally as terrible.

However the other things are occuring in *FAR* greater frequency and quanity than abortion.

If all of these people going off about abortion were really out to help lives then they would focus on these other things. They aren't. Which suggests that their reasons are alot more cynical than they would lead people to believe. 

(By this I mean that they are validating their lives by tirading as "Bible Warriors")


----------



## skattabrain (Apr 6, 2007)

Drew said:


> Actually, I'd argue the contrary, that more people are enslaved by various substances than have abortions any given year. We just turn a blind eye when it's no one we know.


 i bet that's true, but i was talking about baby's born addicted



Mastodon said:


> If all of these people going off about abortion were really out to help lives then they would focus on these other things. They aren't. Which suggests that their reasons are alot more cynical than they would lead people to believe.


 i don't understand how you come to that conclusion though, who says they aren't doing things to help society? 



Drew said:


> No, the point of the article was that too many Christians consider Abortion and Homosexuality, two popular political issues, to be the only two problems worth dealing with , while many of the other religious issues have been marginalized by the white middle class majority within the church to be "other people's problems" and "local race issues," and not within the scope of religion.
> 
> Arguing abortion is more important than any other problem facing people just feeds this logic.



i agree with your first paragraph but not the 2nd. many christians view abortion as a holocaust, so whether you feel that way or not is not my point. my point is that for many pro-lifers ... it's an urgent problem. but i don't think it says it's the only thing worth dealing with ... i mean, it's not to me.

there are many evils the world, this argument is kinda silly ... again, sorry for turning this into a "this issue is 2 points more important than this issue".

i mean ... look at the state of urgency in Africa ... famine, disease ... we could go on and on.


----------



## XEN (Apr 6, 2007)

I will be so happy when Jesus returns because then he'll finally put an end to Christianity once and for all.

*Matthew 23:15*
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are."


----------



## Nik (Apr 6, 2007)

skattabrain said:


> romeo ... the viewpoint in which i'm talking about it is a life is a life. a fetus is not a chicken.



So chicken's don't have a life?  

I'm sorry, but I wouldn't be surprised if a chicken has a million times the consciousness of an unborn fetus.

That's not to say that I'm pro-abortion. It's obviously a horrible procedure, but sadly, sometimes necessary. I find abortion as displeasing as the next guy, but I've never bought into the "OMG fetuses are aware, they feel pain" arguments. Do you have any memories from when you were in the womb? Hell, I don't remember anything from the first 2 years of my life. Here's an interesting fact: scientists have shown that newborn babies have no concept of up and down for the first few months of their life. Who knows what other aspects of being 'aware' which we find trivial are not present in newborn's minds.

Having said that, abortion past a certain stage is still grossly disturbing. I don't know what the limit is, but I think abortions past the 2 months stage should be illegal.


----------



## skattabrain (Apr 6, 2007)

Nik said:


> So chicken's don't have a life?


----------



## noodles (Apr 6, 2007)

Somehow I should have known this would turn into another stupid abortion debate. 

Greg, as Drew already said, you completely missed the point of the article, while lending credit to the point the author was trying to make. The bible doesn't tell the reader to go running off, telling people what to do, and punishing them for not doing it. Adultery used to be a capital offense, yet Jesus' response was "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Jesus wasn't telling you to judge people, but to love them, no matter how vile their sin is. Why? Because their sin isn't your business, it's God's business. I may not be Christian, but even I understand that. It is right there, in black and white.

It is also funny that you had to point the finger and yell "Socialist!", because Jesus was closer to a socialist than the average modern day Christian. Abandon money to the government, forgo materialistic wealth, treat your peers as you want to be treated, and give to those with the greatest need. I think you need to go back and read the bible without preconceived notions taught to you by a pastor with an agenda.

The point of the article was the same point Jesus was trying to make: you don't fix the world's problems by running around and punishing people. You do it be first accepting and loving people for who they are, and then working with them to help them solve their own problems.


----------



## Mastodon (Apr 6, 2007)

skattabrain said:


> i bet that's true, but i was talking about baby's born addicted
> 
> 
> i don't understand how you come to that conclusion though, who says they aren't doing things to help society?
> ...




I came to that conclusion because their main quarrel is with something that is miniscule in comparison to the other things that are going on. They very well may be sincere in their efforts to help society as a whole, but it seems more like their feelings are "As Christians it is our duty to not let this happen".


----------



## skattabrain (Apr 6, 2007)

noodles ... 

i had to rewrite this post 3 times because of the pastor with agenda comment.

i have my own mind and get force fed nothing ... i consider my priest one of the best spiritual advisers but that doesn't mean i can't think for myself. i think your statement about me needing to go back is ... well, it's just upsets me. i was raised catholic, became interested in the occult in my teenage years, spent years not practicing my faith, and came around full circle after much, much questioning. so please cut me a little slack because i'm not casting stones, i'm not judging ... i'm just saying it's very sad that abortion exists ... it's sad that some communities are so messed up ... my point was, and i'll say it again, that as lousy as it is ... they're at least alive to make these bad choices.

to judge is one thing, to say something is just plain wrong is another, it's not quite the same thing as judging. I feel deep pain and sadness for people that have had to make that decision, i've had close friends and family go through it. and i'm not hateful and seeking vengence for them. truth is, many woman who have had them regret it for their entire lives.

2nd - drew already brought this to my attention, he was correct in some aspects and there's some aspects i disagree but of course we'll have our own opinions. the socialist comment was more of me feeling the heat. but i'm not big on government helping people to the point that the can't help themselves ... which isn't the case here. i believe in helping people out of your own heart, but maybe i'm too concerned about abuse of the system ... i don't know. but that's where that comment came from. but that's another argument and again, sorry for bringing that in.

3rd - i've admitted i hastliy read the article and read something that wasn't there, i could be an asshole and continue but i was wrong and for that i was dumb and sorry for taking this thread and making it a spectacle

i agree on what you say Jesus taught ... i feel the same way ... i'm not going to go tooting my horn here. yes, we have our problems, but there are a lot of good, very good people and to write them all off as annoying bible thumpers that just bitch about this and that, vote repulican and are holier than thou ... it's not fair.

but i still don't see how what i've said matches your last paragraph. me saying "this is wrong" in no way shape or form is me not accepting people.

Jesus spoke much of love and understanding, we all need to be that way. Jesus also was quick to point out several things that are wrong and didn't sugercoat it. 

BTW - Read Romans



Mastodon said:


> I came to that conclusion because their main quarrel is with something that is miniscule in comparison to the other things that are going on. They very well may be sincere in their efforts to help society as a whole, but it seems more like their feelings are "As Christians it is our duty to not let this happen".



i guess when you consider that a Christian views abortion as a murder, yeah ... they do feel compelled to put a stop to it.

and yes, there are problems all over the world, in every neighborhood ... but sometimes the things that affect you most to the point you feel compelled to act are the things going on right next to you ... like the pastor the got denied help.


OMG ... my 666th post.



noodles said:


> Somehow I should have known this would turn into another stupid abortion debate.
> 
> Greg, as Drew already said, you completely missed the point of the article, while lending credit to the point the author was trying to make. The bible doesn't tell the reader to go running off, telling people what to do, and punishing them for not doing it. Adultery used to be a capital offense, yet Jesus' response was "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Jesus wasn't telling you to judge people, but to love them, no matter how vile their sin is. Why? Because their sin isn't your business, it's God's business. I may not be Christian, but even I understand that. It is right there, in black and white.
> 
> ...



btw noodles ... you posted a link in another thread ... a test to see where you stand ... left/right etc ... i was surprised how left it actually was when i took it.


----------



## Metal Ken (Apr 6, 2007)

skattabrain said:


> i guess when you consider that a Christian views abortion as a murder, yeah ... they do feel compelled to put a stop to it.



You can't really generalize like that though. i _used_ to be a christian and i never had a problem with abortion. You know why? They never say anything about it in the bible. I realized it was a necessary evil. If a mother's life is in danger in a pregnancy, its better to kill of the child than to bring it to term. sometimes that HAS to happen, because its better for a baby not to be born rather than have a dead baby and a dead mother.


----------



## distressed_romeo (Apr 6, 2007)

Metal Ken said:


> They never say anything about it in the bible.



I showed my Religious Studies student brother this thread, just to get his perspective, and he said that as well...

Skattabrain...credit to you for that response. Just to clarify though, none of us have said we think abortion is great...Metal Ken's 'necessary evil' comment sums up how I suspect most pro-choice thinkers view the issue. Whether we like it or not, the world is an imperfect place, and frequently we're forced to make decisions where no-one comes out on top. I've known girls who've terminated pregnancies, and they do feel terrible about it for the rest of their lives, but that still hasn't changed my views on the subject, as the alternative, and the effect it would have had on their lives and those of the potential children, would have been ten times worse.


----------



## skattabrain (Apr 6, 2007)

Metal Ken said:


> You can't really generalize like that though. i _used_ to be a christian and i never had a problem with abortion. You know why? They never say anything about it in the bible. I realized it was a necessary evil. If a mother's life is in danger in a pregnancy, its better to kill of the child than to bring it to term. sometimes that HAS to happen, because its better for a baby not to be born rather than have a dead baby and a dead mother.



yeah, there is no "Thou shalt no commit abortion", but i found this interesting - http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-abortioninthebible.html

i feel it's obvious ... but that would be my opinion.


----------



## Rev2010 (Apr 6, 2007)

skattabrain said:


> give me a break ... there is no reason for not taking action here ... everyone has a special purpose in their life and mission ... but let's not belittle the killing of innocence.



These issues are always hot hence the reason this thread has turned into a 5 page long abortion debate. I'm coming in seemingly late at this point.

Anyhow, I completely disagree with your feelings on this and agree with distressed_romeo. And one simple thing I can ask you is *did you ever masturbate ever in your life?* If you say yes then you are a hypocrite as that is a waste of life and you shouldn't go on lamenting here. If you say no you are a liar.


Rev.


----------



## ohio_eric (Apr 6, 2007)

OK children let's all calm down. 

First off what Roland Martin is writing about is really nothing new. Jim Wallis wrote a book about it _God's Politics_, which is a decent read check it out if you get the chance. But many religious people have taken up the cause of returning Christianity to it's real cause which is the personal betterment aka salvation and making the world a better place for everyone. Don't believe me? Read the Sermon on the Mount some time. Look up the Corporal and the Spiritual Works of Mercy. These are the things that keep me going to Mass every Sunday. I'm Catholic if you don't know. Also if you don't know Catholic tanslates to universal. It's a meaning I take to heart in how I look at the world. We're all in this together. No one should be left behind and no one's needs should go ignored. Catholic Social Justice is my real calling and it's what keeps my faith strong. Yes abortion is an important issue to Catholics but it is not the only issue. Catholics are supposed to be encouraged to vote on all the issues important to Catholicism not just abortion or gay marriage. It's called using proportionate means to makes one's decision as neither party exactly aligns well with any Christian's faith.

The problem is there are people from all denominations of Christianity that will use these hot button issues to gain power for themselves. Christianity is not for yourself first if I remember my twelve years of Catholic school reigion classes correctly.  If all people truly lived according to their faiths be they Muslim, Christian, Jew or whatever, the world would be a far better place. But religion gives people power and power makes many people act in ways that aren't even remotely religious.


----------



## Scott (Apr 6, 2007)

Rev2010 said:


> *did you ever masturbate ever in your life?* If you say yes then you are a hypocrite as that is a waste of life and you shouldn't go on lamenting here. If you say no you are a liar.
> 
> 
> Rev.



Not the same thing by a long shot, and you know it. You can't compare the sin of masturbation, or eating meat on a friday, to the killing of another human being (Note: i'm not saying one way or another if I think an unborn fetus is considered to be the same as you or I. I'm just going by what the current argument is.)


Personally, i'm pro choice, and pro life. I feel it's up to the mother to decide if she gives birth or not, and everyone else should keep their opinions to themselves. But I also feel that the mother should look at other options if she isn't ready to be a mother. Adoption for example.


Also, no one can change my religious views, and I can't change theirs. Nor would I try, or get into an argument with someone over it. So why is it being debated here? If it was up to me, the Political and Current events forum, would have religious discussion excluded. All it does is tear us apart and think differently of each other because of our religious views.


Lets just go back to bashing Bush, and call it a day.


----------



## Metal Ken (Apr 7, 2007)

skattabrain said:


> yeah, there is no "Thou shalt no commit abortion", but i found this interesting - http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-abortioninthebible.html
> 
> i feel it's obvious ... but that would be my opinion.



I feel their reasoning is a bit off. It says "The Bible says you shouldn't kill innocent people". then they list the commandment "Thou Shall Not Kill". This is very vague. Thou shall not kill what? What does that say of executions? wars? etc? And kill what? Kill animals? Plants? Roaches? 
See, that in and of itself is vague. 
Also, In the very next book of the bible, God commands Jacob to slaughter Amalek and his people. So god tells us not to kill, then he tells jacob to kill a man and his followers with a sword.

The fact they bring up Hebrews didnt have a word for unborn children as well doesnt really mean anything. They probably had no idea of how the internals of a pregnancy worked to begin with. For All they knew, babies just done popped out of people. The whole predestination thing they bring up really doesn't apply either. If thats the case, what about miscarriages? God created them to die off before they became sentient? 
And if you're just going by things that are 'alive'. Hell, tumors are alive. Should we not remove those?


----------



## Metal Ken (Apr 7, 2007)

Scott said:


> You can't compare the sin of masturbation, or eating meat on a friday, to the killing of another human being



the consensus i hear is that all sin has an equal punishment. the bible also says that lusting after a woman equates to adultery, and wishing a man dead equates to murder.


----------



## distressed_romeo (Apr 7, 2007)

Metal Ken said:


> I feel their reasoning is a bit off. It says "The Bible says you shouldn't kill innocent people". then they list the commandment "Thou Shall Not Kill". This is very vague. Thou shall not kill what? What does that say of executions? wars? etc? And kill what? Kill animals? Plants? Roaches?
> See, that in and of itself is vague.
> Also, In the very next book of the bible, God commands Jacob to slaughter Amalek and his people. So god tells us not to kill, then he tells jacob to kill a man and his followers with a sword.



The Gnostics used to explain that by saying that the Old Testament and New Testament gods were two seperate characters, although now probably isn't the best time to discuss that...


----------



## Metal Ken (Apr 7, 2007)

distressed_romeo said:


> The Gnostics used to explain that by saying that the Old Testament and New Testament gods were two seperate characters, although now probably isn't the best time to discuss that...



I'm aware. Actually, both stories are from Exodus. for some reason i forgot the 10 commandments were in Exodus 

I think the point still stands. God says not to kill, then orders a dude to kill a man and his followers by the sword.


----------



## eaeolian (Apr 7, 2007)

noodles said:


> Greg, as Drew already said, you completely missed the point of the article, while lending credit to the point the author was trying to make. The bible doesn't tell the reader to go running off, telling people what to do, and punishing them for not doing it. Adultery used to be a capital offense, yet Jesus' response was "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Jesus wasn't telling you to judge people, but to love them, no matter how vile their sin is. Why? Because their sin isn't your business, it's God's business. I may not be Christian, but even I understand that. It is right there, in black and white.



Ridiculously well said.


----------



## Rev2010 (Apr 7, 2007)

Scott said:


> Not the same thing by a long shot, and you know it. You can't compare the sin of masturbation, or eating meat on a friday, to the killing of another human being



Is it the same thing in every way. We're not talking about killing another human, skatterbrain was arguing against abortion - killing a non-fully formed fetus. If the featus is aborted before it's brain has formed and before it has conscious thought than how is that not the same as wasting life with masturbation. I hate to point this out to you as I'm sure you're well aware but the church considers masturbation a sin. And I'm only pointing out the masturbation thing for sake of argument. And to prove the validity of this argument let's put it this way:

If you don't think masturbation is on the same level of sin as abortion what would you say to a space traveler that killed off a few microbes on a planet that would've developed into intelligent life? If instead of us being here what if some space faring race landed on Earth in the very beginning of life here and killed off the beginnings of our life so that we were never to exist? Of course they'd say, "Eh, it's just a few insignificant microbes".

For anyone to be labeling different levels of life and putting different "values" on them I think is a sin in itself. Who are you to assign values on such things hmmm?? 


Rev.


----------



## Drew (Apr 7, 2007)

Scott said:


> Not the same thing by a long shot, and you know it. You can't compare the sin of masturbation... to the killing of another human being (Note: i'm not saying one way or another if I think an unborn fetus is considered to be the same as you or I. I'm just going by what the current argument is.)



"Every sperm is sacred,
Every sperm is great,
Every sperm that's wasted, 
God gets quite irate..."

Which begs the question, does the Bible treat a man's seed as the genesis of conception, or a woman's egg? Did they even KNOW that women ovulated in biblical days?

I suspect, by a literal interpretation of the bible, that masturbation or ANY sexual activity resulting in ejaculation for a purpose other than insemination, is tantamount to murder of an innocent. 

So remember, next time you shoot itall over her tits or she swallows, you just aborted an unborn child. 

...Unless, of course, "life" in the biblical sense of the word requires at least a moderate amount of development of the fetus, or that we're not supposed to take a by-the-letter literal interpretation of the bible as truth. your call.


----------



## D-EJ915 (Apr 7, 2007)

I'm pretty sure that Jewish law required women "in their time" to seclude themselves as to not taint others with "the problem." That's my loose remembrance of what it was like, but it was pretty much like that, they were "unclean" and anyone who touched them or was with/near them was also unclean.


----------



## Drew (Apr 7, 2007)

That was due to their period, however, which doesn't correlate with ovulation ncesarrily - it was forbidden for Christian men to sleep with woman during "their time" for the exact same reason, I believe, which sort of makes that argument moot. 

To the best of my ability to recollect, no mention of ovulation is mentioned in the bible, and that taken with Eve being made from Adam's rib seems to make the act of conception solely the product of a man, and the gestation the role of the woman. So, someone check me if I'm wrong, but that would make safe sex and masturbation no different in the eyes of god than abortion, if we consider abortion to be murder. Correct?


----------



## Rev2010 (Apr 7, 2007)

Drew said:


> but that would make safe sex and masturbation no different in the eyes of god than abortion, if we consider abortion to be murder. Correct?



That is exactly the point I was making  

- Just a note to all, I'm in no way saying these are my personal beliefs as I'm not religious.


Rev.


----------



## skattabrain (Apr 7, 2007)

Drew said:


> That was due to their period, however, which doesn't correlate with ovulation ncesarrily - it was forbidden for Christian men to sleep with woman during "their time" for the exact same reason, I believe, which sort of makes that argument moot.
> 
> To the best of my ability to recollect, no mention of ovulation is mentioned in the bible, and that taken with Eve being made from Adam's rib seems to make the act of conception solely the product of a man, and the gestation the role of the woman. So, someone check me if I'm wrong, but that would make safe sex and masturbation no different in the eyes of god than abortion, if we consider abortion to be murder. Correct?



the only reason why i would not see it as not exactly the same is conception has started when the egg and sperm become one. but yes, the catholic church (not sure about other divisions of christianity) does view wasting your seed as a sin.

i may be wrong, i'm not a theologian, but i think it's viewed as safe sex is essentially blocking the hand of God from "creating the miracle of life" versus abortion ... which is taking away one's life.



Scott said:


> Also, no one can change my religious views, and I can't change theirs. Nor would I try, or get into an argument with someone over it. So why is it being debated here? If it was up to me, the Political and Current events forum, would have religious discussion excluded. All it does is tear us apart and think differently of each other because of our religious views.


Scott, after making my initial post, I agree with you.


----------



## ohio_eric (Apr 7, 2007)

Here's the list of mortal sins. I know it's a long list but the big upside to being Catholic is confession. You can always get the slate wiped clean.  So it's not as harsh as the list makes it seem to some.


----------



## skattabrain (Apr 7, 2007)

oh my eric ... that's a whole new can of worms you jsut busted in to! lol


----------



## ohio_eric (Apr 7, 2007)

Well if you're going to discuss sin it helps to know the facts and such first.


----------



## skattabrain (Apr 7, 2007)

eric ... what a great link ... thanks much for that


----------



## distressed_romeo (Apr 7, 2007)

Actually, I'm not in favour of banning all talk of religion from this board...although it may raise some topics that some or all of us may find uncomfortable, issues won't get resolved unless people are willing to debate them. I mean c'mon, we're all adults here...


----------



## Rev2010 (Apr 7, 2007)

skattabrain said:


> i may be wrong, i'm not a theologian, but i think it's viewed as safe sex is essentially blocking the hand of God from "creating the miracle of life" versus abortion



But I'm sure you're well aware that semen is actually alive yes? And since it's alive I think it should be considered a "hand of God" as well.


Rev.


----------



## skattabrain (Apr 7, 2007)

Rev2010 said:


> But I'm sure you're well aware that semen is actually alive yes? And since it's alive I think it should be considered a "hand of God" as well.



yes, it's alive ... i'm just not so sure my semen have the equivalent of a humans soul until conception.


----------



## Metal Ken (Apr 7, 2007)

ohio_eric said:


> I know it's a long list but the big upside to being Catholic is confession. You can always get the slate wiped clean.  So it's not as harsh as the list makes it seem to some.


Well, thats the thing i liked about protestantism, you didnt need to confess, you just pray and ask forgiveness... Unless it was blasphemy of the holy ghost. then you're kinda S.O.L.


Skatta- where do you draw that distinction, though?


----------



## skattabrain (Apr 7, 2007)

Metal Ken said:


> Skatta- where do you draw that distinction, though?



brutal honesty? my opinion, i'll have to research ... not one of the hotter questions in my faith. but the soul isn't tied to the body.



Metal Ken said:


> Well, thats the thing i liked about protestantism, you didnt need to confess, you just pray and ask forgiveness... Unless it was blasphemy of the holy ghost. then you're kinda S.O.L.



there are biblical and traditional references for the need of confession ... but i can say from experience that the feeling of walking out of a confessional after you've let it all out has no comparison ... never mind the spiritual guidance. sadly ... not all priests hold such reverence for confession in today's age.


----------



## Metal Ken (Apr 7, 2007)

skattabrain said:


> brutal honesty? my opinion, i'll have to research ... not one of the hotter questions in my faith. but the soul isn't tied to the body.



Well, if they don't specifically define "Life At Conception" outright in there. I'm sure you can find some verse about it. Like Monty Python and Drew said 



skattabrain said:


> there are biblical and traditional references for the need of confession ... but i can say from experience that the feeling of walking out of a confessional after you've let it all out has no comparison ... never mind the spiritual guidance. sadly ... not all priests hold such reverence for confession in today's age.




There's also biblical references you shouldn't eat pork, nor sea animals without scales or fins. There's also references that say you shouldn't have long hair, and you should kill homosexuals.. It also says not to even mention the _names_ of other gods. Why don't people follow those rules?


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Apr 7, 2007)

Traditional Biblical interpretations of when "life begins" have been all over the place, from early Christian theologians to Jewish Rabbinical teachings from the Talmud, to modern attempts to synthesize science with a certain perception of the concept.

There has been no real overwhelming consensus.


As for me, I don't believe in "sin." People can fuck up, make mistakes, etc., but that all makes much more sense when looked at in terms of psychological and biological behaviors we've evolved and adapted with our cultures. These behaviors being based in some sort of original "falling out" with God, based on some silly legend? Ehh. Doesn't really hold water.


----------



## Metal Ken (Apr 7, 2007)

The Dark Wolf said:


> Traditional Biblical interpretations of when "life begins" have been all over the place, from early Christian theologians to Jewish Rabbinical teachings from the Talmud, to modern attempts to synthesize science with a certain perception of the concept.
> 
> There has been no real overwhelming consensus.
> 
> ...



well put


----------



## skattabrain (Apr 7, 2007)

so i guess the joke is, no matter what item you have as basis for disproving ... i'll have a scripture verse for it, right? not a monty python fan and missed drew's comment.


----------



## Metal Ken (Apr 7, 2007)

skattabrain said:


> so i guess the joke is, no matter what item you have as basis for disproving ... i'll have a scripture verse for it, right? not a monty python fan and missed drew's comment.



http://www.religiousconsultation.org/News_Tracker/where_does_God_stand_on_abortion.htm

Take a look at this.


----------



## ohio_eric (Apr 7, 2007)

Abortion, in the Catholic Church's view, falls under their pro-life stance. The Catholics are totally pro-life, they oppose the death penalty, mercy killing,abortion and any taking of human life. It's what one Cardinal refered to as the semaless gament, meaning all life is sacred. 

As a general rule I refuse to get into Bible quoting wars. It just makes my head hurt watching people go back and forth.


----------



## Metal Ken (Apr 7, 2007)

ohio_eric said:


> As a general rule I refuse to get into Bible quoting wars. It just makes my head hurt watching people go back and forth.


Someone once said "When used properly, the bible is the greatest argument against Christianity."

Hell, i just like to debate. I used to be a christian and i like to pose questions to people that i had a problem with when I was a christian.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Apr 7, 2007)

Metal Ken said:


> Someone once said "When used properly, the bible is the greatest argument against Christianity."


Ken, succinct. The whole reason I turned away from organized, traditional "Christianity." Dave's original point/article was just the glaring spotlight shone on the corruption that did it for me.

My personal feeling is that if Jesus were to return today, as Urklvendltidator alluded to, he would be outraged and disgusted with what goes on in his name. I think we'd see "Rumble In the Temple, Part 2! The Savior Gets Revenge!" in a minute.


----------



## Metal Ken (Apr 7, 2007)

The Dark Wolf said:


> Ken, succinct. The whole reason I turned away from organized, traditional "Christianity." Dave's original point/article was just the glaring spotlight shone on the corruption that did it for me.
> 
> My personal feeling is that if Jesus were to return today, as Urklvendltidator alluded to, he would be outraged and disgusted with what goes on in his name. I think we'd see "Rumble In the Temple, Part 2! The Savior Gets Revenge!" in a minute.




I agree 100%. I remember seeing a bumper sticker that said "Jesus was a liberal"


----------



## ohio_eric (Apr 7, 2007)

Metal Ken said:


> I agree 100%. I remember seeing a bumper sticker that said "Jesus was a liberal"



Actually if you take away the rules about sex from Christianity it is fairly liberal. Catholics are against the death penalty, pro-unions and universal health care, pro-progressive taxation, pro-environment and pro-human rights. So to be a liberal and religious isn't a stretch at all.


----------



## Metal Ken (Apr 7, 2007)

ohio_eric said:


> Actually if you take away the rules about sex from Christianity it is fairly liberal. Catholics are against the death penalty, pro-unions and universal health care, pro-progressive taxation, pro-environment and pro-human rights. So to be a liberal and religious isn't a stretch at all.



Yeah, but protestant christianity is FAR more right wing, though, dude.


----------



## Mastodon (Apr 7, 2007)

distressed_romeo said:


> Actually, I'm not in favour of banning all talk of religion from this board...although it may raise some topics that some or all of us may find uncomfortable, issues won't get resolved unless people are willing to debate them. I mean c'mon, we're all adults here...



+1 for sure.



metalken said:


> I agree 100%. I remember seeing a bumper sticker that said "Jesus was a liberal"



That was probably this one from the Landover Baptist Church. http://www.cafepress.com/landoverbaptist.4475639


----------



## ohio_eric (Apr 7, 2007)

Metal Ken said:


> Yeah, but protestant christianity is FAR more right wing, though, dude.




The trouble with a lot of Protestant churches is that they are started by somebody who got pissed off at their pastor and they run off and start a church that has that guy's idea of what religion is. So if someone thinks the Holy Trinity is God, Jesus and George Bush well that's what they're going to preach. Many Protestant and even some Evangelical churches are far more left leaning than most people realize. It's just that the right wing churches have been so powerful and had the ear of the government for the last six years.


----------



## Metal Ken (Apr 7, 2007)

ohio_eric said:


> The trouble with a lot of Protestant churches is that they are started by somebody who got pissed off at their pastor and they run off and start a church that has that guy's idea of what religion is. So if someone thinks the Holy Trinity is God, Jesus and George Bush well that's what they're going to preach. Many Protestant and even some Evangelical churches are far more left leaning than most people realize. It's just that the right wing churches have been so powerful and had the ear of the government for the last six years.



I'm just going by the experiences i had when i was growing up. my parents moved about every two years or so. As such, we went to a LOT of churches. I also had to go on mission trip type things (not my style), Bible camps, all kinds of church events.. Most of the ones we've went to weren't so much "So and so got pissed off and started a branch of protestantism", most of the preachers fits squarely in a specific (ex: Lutheran, episcopal, etc), had a guy who graduated from a seminary, was an assistant pastor for a while and once he got familiar enough with preaching, just started his own church in the same vein as the church he grew up in.


----------



## D-EJ915 (Apr 7, 2007)

I've never been to a church which was "started by a pissed off guy" lol. I've known the pastors personally at the ones I've been to and they're pretty cool


----------



## distressed_romeo (Apr 7, 2007)

Are you guys familiar with the history of the Church of England?


----------



## ohio_eric (Apr 7, 2007)

Actually Protestanism got it's start because Martin Luther was dissatisfied with the Catholic Church.


----------



## D-EJ915 (Apr 7, 2007)

distressed_romeo said:


> Are you guys familiar with the history of the Church of England?


Anglican church, aka started so you could get a divorce


----------



## Metal Ken (Apr 7, 2007)

ohio_eric said:


> Actually Protestanism got it's start because Martin Luther was dissatisfied with the Catholic Church.



I'm aware of that. Also, we got to remember "The protestants were the guys who were so uptight they got kicked out of england". I think thats how the Simpsons phrased it. 

If i recall, Martin Luther's biggest complaint with the Catholic Church was that it was too focused on ceremonialism and not with worshipping God. Least thats what they taught us in Protestant Christian schools  He was also concerned about the selling of church office, and things like that, correct?


----------



## ohio_eric (Apr 7, 2007)

Metal Ken said:


> I'm aware of that. Also, we got to remember "The protestants were the guys who were so uptight they got kicked out of england". I think thats how the Simpsons phrased it.
> 
> If i recall, Martin Luther's biggest complaint with the Catholic Church was that it was too focused on ceremonialism and not with worshipping God. Least thats what they taught us in Protestant Christian schools  He was also concerned about the selling of church office, and things like that, correct?




Correct, there was a really good special about Martin Luther on PBS a while back. He was so devoted I'm not sure it didn't drive him a bit insane really.


----------



## distressed_romeo (Apr 7, 2007)

Metal Ken said:


> I'm aware of that. Also, we got to remember "The protestants were the guys who were so uptight they got kicked out of england". I think thats how the Simpsons phrased it.
> 
> If i recall, Martin Luther's biggest complaint with the Catholic Church was that it was too focused on ceremonialism and not with worshipping God. Least thats what they taught us in Protestant Christian schools  He was also concerned about the selling of church office, and things like that, correct?



One of his major complaints was also that people could buy, for insane sums of money, places in heaven for dead relatives, or pardons for their own sins...



D-EJ915 said:


> Anglican church, aka started so you could get a divorce



Yup!


----------



## zimbloth (Apr 7, 2007)

skattabrain said:


> well, if you are asking me i personally will say the fetus has the greater need.



The population of Earth is high enough. Also, won't they just goto heaven anyways since they die as an innocent soul? In which case who cares? I'd rather focus on the suffering of people who are alive and/or can feel. Don't get me wrong, I think abortion is pretty grotesque and I think it should be an absolute last resort.

All I have to say about the rest of this is, I may not be religious, but I have a higher opinion of God than most of your kind. I refuse to subscribe to the notion that God is some petty prick, the nature of existence and the Universe is far more complex than that bullshit. Get over your ego. It's 2007, I can't believe we're still even having this conversation.


----------



## noodles (Apr 8, 2007)

Oh well, might as well throw another wrench into the failing machinery of this thread... 

I wonder how many people here understand enough about history to understand many of the motivations of the Catholic Church, and what made ALL churches what they are today. The early Catholic Church influenced *every* modern Christian, because until the splintering of Protestantism, the Catholic Church, in a time where the common man could not read or write, was the final word on how a Christian should act. Enough so that additional gospels that did not fit the view of the church were completely dropped from the list of books that would become the bible.

I digress, though. Here comes the can of worms...

Faced with many of the problems of the ancient to middle ages world, the Catholic Church had a very good reason to take strong stances against masturbation, contraception, and abortion. Disease, the most damaging of which was the black plague, eliminated over half of all children. War was another big claimer of lives. Then their were the constant hazards of life in a world that predated modern medicine. Big families were practical of nature. You had to have at least six kids to have two live to marry and start a family of their own. This was especially important when Christianity was in its infancy, because they were trying to establish a foothold in the world. Offspring were a very effective way of spreading your religion.

There are plenty of teaching that the church has since abandoned as being no longer relevant in the modern world. When is the last time you heard of an exorcism? We have a understanding of psychological disorders now. Stoning adulteresses? That's a matter to be settled between the couple and their lawyers. Whose baby is it, King Solomon? His majesty, in his infinite wisdom, decrees that a DNA test shall be performed. Hell, when is the last time a scientist got excommunicated for his discoveries? Even atheists get prayer instead of the stake these days.

Modern medicine caused a massive explosion in population on this planet, to the point that small, planned families are far more practical in the modern world. So much so that cultures like China have adopted population control laws (that have caused their own set of problems). Their is no reason to encourage such a vendetta against sex education, contraception, and abortion, just like their is no reason to stone the woman who cheats on her husband. Use a condom and hire a lawyer like everyone else.

Either way, all of this is moot in the face of modern scientific knowledge of human physiology. The church of old did not know what he know about human reproduction, so they only commented on what they had a knowledge of when the New Testament was written, which was over 1900 years ago.

Given an old source's inabilities to answer modern religious dilemmas, the faithful need to return to the basic teaching of their savior: love thy neighbor as thyself. This single passage perfectly summed up his treatment of those that could be viewed as sinners. He loved them simply because they were a human being, he strived to understand each person individually, and with unconditional lover, he worked to assist them in solving their problems. As a non-believer who takes an active interest in the differences between ancient religious teachings and modern day dogma, I can honestly say that the Jesus that I read of in the bible is someone I think I could respect if I met him. He seemed to have a lot of the traits of Mahatma Gandhi. He seems like a positive, radical influence that is completely misunderstood. I really don't feel many modern day Christians understand him, and when I come across one who does, I as a non-believer give him my respect for holding true to the teachings of what he professes to believe.


----------



## Ancestor (Apr 8, 2007)

To quote Ian Gillan, "And another thing I won't discuss is rreee-ligion. It always starts a fight." 

I'm a nerd. I think that people should always try to help each other. That's the bottom line.


----------



## Metal Ken (Apr 8, 2007)

noodles said:


> When is the last time you heard of an exorcism?



offtopic, but about a week ago. I listen to Art Bell 




Ancestor said:


> To quote Ian Gillan, "And another thing I won't discuss is rreee-ligion. It always starts a fight."
> 
> I'm a nerd. I think that people should always try to help each other. That's the bottom line.




I'd like a forum to discuss religion here, but at the same time i don't..(I know it wont happen anyway). 
And if people just tried to help each other, it'd be great. Thats what the author in that article was talking about. Love thy neighbor as thyself. that kind of thing. Everyone should have that attitude.


----------



## Ryan (Apr 8, 2007)

I saw this and said "this'll be good"


----------



## Drew (Apr 8, 2007)

skattabrain said:


> the only reason why i would not see it as not exactly the same is conception has started when the egg and sperm become one. but yes, the catholic church (not sure about other divisions of christianity) does view wasting your seed as a sin.



Ok, in that case you have one of two options on your hands:

1.) You can find a single reference to a human egg within the Bible, thus demonstrating that the belief that life = 1 sperm + 1 egg is Biblically held, or

2.) You are forced to admit that your reasons for viewing abortion as the most important evil for Christianity to stamp out are not based upon a literal interpretation of the Bible, and are not _entirely_ handed down as "the word of god." 

As the later throws a pretty big monkey wrench into the works for you, and I'm fairly sure the former is not the case, I'll be curious how you respond.


----------



## ohio_eric (Apr 8, 2007)

Ryan said:


> I saw this and said "this'll be good"




"A devout Christian's view on....Metal Ken" 

Unintended humor is always the funniest.


----------



## monkeybassguru (Apr 8, 2007)

Hey just wanted to say that i am a philosophy and theology student and the whole reason for the ban on abortion in Christianity stems from the belief that the body and soul are intrinsically linked. Hell half the heresies (i.e. the gnostic heresies) in Christianity stem from this. For Christianity the official position has always been that the moment a 'life' is concieved it has a soul. In modern times this has come to mean the moment mr sperm meets mrs egg, if u want to see a detailed account of this read the catechism. The argument by liberal Christians for abortion is for the lessor of two evils (see Rowen William's ideas for this). But despite this do you guys not feel you've gone a wee bit off topic on this, you've turned an intelligent argument about the problems in the modern church into a boo hurrah arguement about abortion, we're all adults and lets face it, abortion is a topic that automatically yields strong beliefs, can't we just accept each others views and agree to disagree?


----------



## Seedawakener (Apr 8, 2007)

Drew said:


> 1.) You can find a single reference to a human egg within the Bible, thus demonstrating that the belief that life = 1 sperm + 1 egg is Biblically held



Dude, The best point... +rep. Its the same thing with homosexuality. WHen the bible was written nobody had ANY idea what gene was... I believe that they basically came up with a reason because it was seen as something unnatural and weird in the eyes of man. That is why I find the bible so full of things that cant be true because they had no idea about a lot of things that we now know the reasons for... 

and the MAIN reason that I am an agnostic is one simple thing that should be obvious to anyone... There are literally hundreds if not thousands of religions in this world. If a christian is 100% sure that his religion is the only true one and then a Hindu or buddhist is a 100% sure that he is right and the other person is wrong... What makes the christian more right? NOTHING... same goes for atheists, its just fucking ignorant to say: "No, Im right, your wrong." because you both feel that way and have the same amount of "evidence". *Isnt that very very obvious? appaerantly not...*


----------



## stuz719 (Apr 8, 2007)

Metal Ken said:


> If I recall, Martin Luther's biggest complaint with the Catholic Church was that it was too focused on ceremonialism and not with worshipping God.



If I remember correctly the main thrust of the 95 theses was that the Roman Catholic church had become more concerned with turning a profit than acting for the greater glory of god. Good article here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther

You may also want to consider this...



> Hitler wanted to burn Anne Frank. For this, we call him evil. The christian god burns Anne Frank for all eternity. For this, christians call him 'just'



From:

www.rationalresponders.com


----------



## monkeybassguru (Apr 8, 2007)

Sorry to play devils advocate here but you're basically arguing a relativist approuch to religion here, but more importantly just because theres a multitude of answers to one question does'nt stop one being right, for example if asked what 2+2 equals one can give multiple answers, this does'nt stop four being the correct answer. I'm not arguing for any one religion here I'm just making the point. Though in general I agree with you, believing your own faith is right above all others in such an agressive way does demonstrate a certain level of ignorance.


----------



## Seedawakener (Apr 8, 2007)

monkeybassguru said:


> Sorry to play devils advocate here but you're basically arguing a relativist approuch to religion here, but more importantly just because theres a multitude of answers to one question does'nt stop one being right, for example if asked what 2+2 equals one can give multiple answers, this does'nt stop four being the correct answer. I'm not arguing for any one religion here I'm just making the point. Though in general I agree with you, believing your own faith is right above all others in such an agressive way does demonstrate a certain level of ignorance.



But still, you're getting my point right? One answer might be right, but when both parts feel that their answer is *THE RIGHT ONE* there is a bigger chance neither of them is right.


----------



## monkeybassguru (Apr 8, 2007)

Yeah definately, I understand the arguement and personally I don't see the need for any one answer to be the definative be all and end all answer to everything in religious terms, I just thought it was important to make the point. Either way the important part is stopping absolutist intolerant ideas within religious thought becoming the dominant viewpoint, which is an idea I think we all agree on.


----------



## Seedawakener (Apr 8, 2007)

monkeybassguru said:


> Yeah definately, I understand the arguement and personally I don't see the need for any one answer to be the definative be all and end all answer to everything in religious terms, I just thought it was important to make the point. Either way the important part is stopping absolutist intolerant ideas within religious thought becoming the dominant viewpoint, which is an idea I think we all agree on.



+rep  So tr00!


----------



## ohio_eric (Apr 8, 2007)

stuz719 said:


> You may also want to consider this...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 

This one of my biggest beefs with certain atheists. There are so sure they're right they're just as bad as the people they claim are so ignorant. The Rational Responders seem almost irrational. They use Bible verses to "prove" certain good prople are either in Hell or already have their ticket punched for a trip there. It seems vaguely similar to what religious fundamentalists do. Irony can be so ironic sometimes. I can not prove my faith usingy scientific methods. I just can't do it. But then again people, like the Rational Responders, can not prove that God doesn't exist. As Carl Sagan once said, "The absence of evidence is not enidence of absence." 

I don't care what you believe or don't believe. But everyone needs to stop pointing fingers and pretending their superior and just learn to get along. Now if a Fred Phelps comes along sure blast away. But for the most part we need to live in peace and harmony and not constantly building walls between each other. 

Stuts719, please don't take this as an attack on you. It's not. It's just my little rant against certain arrogant fools. You're all good.


----------



## stuz719 (Apr 8, 2007)

ohio_eric said:


> This one of my biggest beefs with certain atheists. There are so sure they're right they're just as bad as the people they claim are so ignorant. The Rational Responders seem almost irrational. They use Bible verses to "prove" certain good prople are either in Hell or already have their ticket punched for a trip there. It seems vaguely similar to what religious fundamentalists do. Irony can be so ironic sometimes. I can not prove my faith usingy scientific methods. I just can't do it. But then again people, like the Rational Responders, can not prove that God doesn't exist. As Carl Sagan once said, "The absence of evidence is not enidence of absence."
> 
> I don't care what you believe or don't believe. But everyone needs to stop pointing fingers and pretending their superior and just learn to get along. Now if a Fred Phelps comes along sure blast away. But for the most part we need to live in peace and harmony and not constantly building walls between each other.
> 
> Stuts719, please don't take this as an attack on you. It's not. It's just my little rant against certain arrogant fools. You're all good.



No offence taken 

I think you may have misread the atheist stance, though, by saying:



> There are so sure they're right they're just as bad as the people they claim are so ignorant. The Rational Responders seem almost irrational. They use Bible verses to "prove" certain good people are either in Hell or already have their ticket punched for a trip there. It seems vaguely similar to what religious fundamentalists do.



The point here is, I think, that the bible is not only inconsistent internally but that _any_ fundamentalist reading of it that takes its infallibility as a given is, by logical extension, similarly internally inconsistent.

Bible verses can't prove that certain people are doomed to hell, assuming it exists - rather they prove that their implication is that said people are, indeed, doomed to hell.

Absence of evidence is indeed not evidence of absence - however once cannot prove a negative - i.e. that god does not exist. The burden of proof is upon the ones making the positive claim that god does exist...


----------



## Cancer (Apr 8, 2007)

Drew said:


> With all due respect, that's an _*INCREDIBLY*_ ethnocentric viewpoint. It's very easy to stand there and say "no one's making them do it" and feel like you're just doing the right thing or some crap like that, but to do so misses the larger reality which is, unlike you, no one's really giving them much reason to NOT do it, and no one's giving them any reason to do much of _*anything*_ else.
> 
> "Training Day" was an absolutely shitty movie in virtually every respect, but there was one scene in particular that really stuck with me. Some kid in the "ghetto" section of town had just been busted for dealing drugs, and the cop was giving him crap for being lowlife scum for dealing drugs. He comes back with, paraphrasing, "oh, and what the fuck else can I do? There's no work in my neighborhood, no one will hire me anywhere else, and every day two or three cars full of college kids from the school on the other side of town pull up next to me and say 'hey man, do you have any weed?' simply because of the color of my skin and where I life. After a while, when you have no ther options, you just can't fight it any more." I'm slaughtering what was actually a rather powerful line, but you get the gist - saying "they chose to do it, so it's their fault" ignores the fact that most of them didn't have a fuck of a lot of other choices.
> 
> Honestly, how many sucessful Wall Street stockbrokers do you know hooked on crack? How many wealthy doctors get hooked on crack because they wake up one day and decide golf or sailing on their multi-million-dollar yaght just isn't giving them the same rush anymore? If you can honestly look at the situation and conclude that crack use is as prevalent as it is amongst socially and economic disadvantaged minorities because "they choose to do it" or "they're too weak to say no" and not because the wealthy white middle class community aggressively stamps it out but is all too willing to turn a blind eye to the problem elsewhere, then you're fucking delusional.



Wow, where to begin... 

As a guy who spent half his childhood in a crack infested neighborhood, at least in Baltimore, I dont think that your viewpoint is ethnocentric at all, or even class-centric, really, it simply displays the reality that, most humans will emulate the behavior of those around them, primarily to fit in, but most often because of lack of imagination, this happens in all cultures.

Having said that, the "delusional" is to think that the "wealthy white middle class community aggressively stamps it out". We don't have Wall Street brokers in Baltimore, but we DO have a large, predominantly white medical community (John Hopkins Hospital/University), and they have just as big of a drug problem as the poor communities, and they should know better. 

Now I'm willing to concede that this could be due in part to proximity,

_(aside: Baltimore is weird like that, you can change economic classes literally by crossing the street, its not the gradual change from class to class I've seen in other cities. It's literally like, 3 stories nice houses on one side of the street, bombed out boarded up houses on the other in certain areas)_

but it kills the "racial superiority" reason, inferred by Drew.

I agree with your reasoning that fetuses can't make the choices that other humans can, and I also agree that someone should give them a voice, but what bothers me the most, what I think is the most fundamental underlying flaw of Christianity (at least as I've seen practiced in the States), is the decision to practice is based on the fear of death (or the loss of immortality).

If you go by that article, the Christian Agenda is simply the procurement of souls. Hence the narrow focus, since abortion "destroys" souls, and homosexuality keeps them from being born in the first place. Each soul saved is simply another reason to admit the "saver" into heaven, another notch on the "get out of sin free" card. Ultimately, I believe that is the writer's point. Christianity should not self serving mission, or a single serving portion, its should be practiced because the believer cares about humanity as a whole. I believe that was Jesus's point, a point quite nicely made with his eventual crucifixion, but lost in Christianity's current form.


----------



## Heavy Ed (Apr 8, 2007)

I was trying to avoid this thread , but just couldn't. Every time religion and God become a debate it brings the worst out in people. Everyones tries to get their point across when there's none to be made. You believe what you believe and that should be it. If I say " I like Coca-Cola" and someone else says "I don't, I like Pepsi-Cola, but thats cool." no one goes to war over it. But as soon as some one says " I believe...." Others immediately feel threatened if it doesn't jive with their beliefs. I have my beliefs and I don't force them on anyone else, I have no right to! I will teach my children my beliefs because its what I know , but won't disown them If they change theirs in time. I have read about and studied the major religions and the core to all of them is be a decent person to yourself and others and the atheists I know have the same belief. All the other separatist ideas in religion was some assholes beef with some thing a long time ago!


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Apr 8, 2007)

^ Why are some people taking this thread as if there's huge debate and tension? I'm failing to see the "worst" in people in this thread. The mods are here to stamp out any foolishness with quickness, so c'mon. 

There isn't any, really. It's just calm, rational discussion. To those of you taking issue with the discussion, and inferring ill-intent when there isn't any, please, don't post then.


----------



## distressed_romeo (Apr 8, 2007)

The Dark Wolf said:


> ^ Why are some people taking this thread as if there's huge debate and tension? I'm failing to see the "worst" in people in this thread. The mods are here to stamp out any foolishness with quickness, so c'mon.
> 
> There isn't any, really. It's just calm, rational discussion. To those of you taking issue with the discussion, and inferring ill-intent when there isn't any, please, don't post then.



 Even if there are differences of opinion (only natural with a topic like this), no-one's resorted to flaming or name-calling.


----------



## Metal Ken (Apr 8, 2007)

Heavy Ed said:


> I was trying to avoid this thread , but just couldn't. Every time religion and God become a debate it brings the worst out in people.



Well, for one, i think we've had about 12 pages of really well thought out rational discussion.


----------



## Seedawakener (Apr 8, 2007)

Metal Ken said:


> Well, for one, i think we've had about 12 pages of really well thought out rational discussion.



I agree! SS.org FTW! Religion is such a fun subject to argue about because there is so much to say and think...


----------



## ohio_eric (Apr 8, 2007)

Metal Ken said:


> Well, for one, i think we've had about 12 pages of really well thought out rational discussion.



 

The P&CE forum is very civil when there are disagreements. I've been a political forums that break down into insults almost instantly.


----------



## Mastodon (Apr 8, 2007)

No ones trying to force anything down any one's throat.

We all just like the challenge of a good debate.


----------



## Heavy Ed (Apr 8, 2007)

Yo I apologize!! I posted in the wrong thread. I was watching the Most Hated Family thread this morning, came back after Easter dinner, signed in and started ranting, sorry again fellas.


----------



## skattabrain (Apr 8, 2007)

Drew said:


> Ok, in that case you have one of two options on your hands:
> 
> 1.) You can find a single reference to a human egg within the Bible, thus demonstrating that the belief that life = 1 sperm + 1 egg is Biblically held, or
> 
> ...



well ... 2 if i had to pick, drew. but your choice is for protestants, because as a catholic we have more input than the bible only. the legacy of the church is not Sola scriptura.

trying to find the reference as you have stated in the bible ... i don't think it's anywhere in that direct fashion and everything i've found requires some more than direct dot connecting. that said, this reference sums up where i stand - http://www.catholic.com/library/Abortion.asp

in hindsight, i don't view it as "the most" important sin the Church has to deal with ... if there is 1 social sin the church must deal with above all others. there world is plenty more f'd up than jsut that!  thanks to this thread for making me think about it more. one thing i know for sure - most women don't abort with malice in their hearts.

so yes, there are many social problems people/cultures/governments (not just the religious) must deal with and yes ... it is sad the 'some' christians are too busy with their own agenda (or just too busy) and as many have stated ... the hard right aren't the voice for all.

for some reason ... the implied statement in noodles original post was what burnt me initially ... hence my venom like reaction. but it's clear my view of politics has been changing the past weeks and formerly was shaped by the fact that i can't relate in a religious way with the left and the mostly pro-choice view, so the little attention i've been able to spend on politics the past 4 years had me leaning "against" that ... but the far right seem more troubling at times and i've overlooked it and ignored it ... i guess it really leads me to where i was 15 years ago ... that the solutions i seek won't come from politicians ... but i digress.

i've grown a bit this weekend. i must admit ... i've been kinda down and embarrassed for how a**hole like i ended of the holy week.



distressed_romeo said:


> Even if there are differences of opinion (only natural with a topic like this), no-one's resorted to flaming or name-calling.



i must admit ... my frustration had me close a few times.


----------



## Mastodon (Apr 8, 2007)

^ No need to feel embarassed. 

It's a topic that you're passionate about and you said that you've feel like you've gotten something out of this experience. So that's all that matters.


----------



## Drew (Apr 9, 2007)

skattabrain said:


> well ... 2 if i had to pick, drew. but your choice is for protestants, because as a catholic we have more input than the bible only. the legacy of the church is not Sola scriptura.



However, many of your arguments why abortion was the "worst" evil in the eyes of the catholic church were based upon a strict interpretation of the Bible. This leaves you in the proverbial horns of a dilemma - to argue as you have chosen that abortion is the "worst" evil the Catholic Church is currently facing, and as evidence to cite a literal interpretation of the bible, means you can't fall back on "we don't subscribe to sola scriptura" when confronted with a literal interpretation of the Bible that suggests "life" originates in a man's seed and not in the womb of the woman. To reject sola scriptura invalidates your argument on abortion; to accept it invalidates your argument on what constitutes "life." Your position is untenable in either direction. 

My personal experience I can shed on this debate is that my mother is a devout Roman Caltholic who is also pro-choice. I don't think she's any less of a Christian for this.


----------



## skattabrain (Apr 9, 2007)

i thought i was clear that i've retracted my view of the use of the terms "worst" and "most"? what i am saying is, it's a grave sin in the eyes of the church. is that what you're getting at or am i still not answering your question?

what i was getting at by sola scriptura is that the authority of the catholic church weighs in here (if you're a catholic).

that said and because you mentioned it (i'm certainly not attacking your mom nor am i passing judgment), but can a person be both pro-choice and roman catholic and have the roman catholic church be ok with that? i'm not a priest, but i don't think so. there are even several in the church that wish to not allow pro-choice politicians to receive communion. the Roman Catholic Church. i'm sure you've heard of issues regarding ted kennedy and several catholic bishops.


----------



## Drew (Apr 9, 2007)

skattabrain said:


> that said and because you mentioned it (i'm certainly not attacking your mom nor am i passing judgment), but can a person be both pro-choice and roman catholic and have the roman catholic church be ok with that? i'm not a priest, but i don't think so. there are even several in the church that wish to not allow pro-choice politicians to receive communion. the Roman Catholic Church. i'm sure you've heard of issues regarding ted kennedy and several catholic bishops.



I suggest rather strongly not going down that road.  You ARE attacking and passing judgement. 

I will simply state that my mom is very active in her parish, taught CCD until a few years ago when her professional life no longer allowed her the time, has a close relationship with her pastor, and is considered a model Catholic by her fellow parishoners. She also, while not actively going out of her way to antagonize pro-life members of her community, makes no secret of her views towards abortion - as a nurse, it'd be sort of hard to.

You're confusing politics with religion, which to a certain extent is what prompted this entire thread in the first place. All your talk to the contrary, I don't feel like you've come around in your way of thinking at _all_.

I made every attempt to keep this polite - I suggest you do the same or drop it.


----------



## skattabrain (Apr 9, 2007)

drew, i am NOT attacking you mom. i'm not trying to be anything other than polite. you are asking me why i stand where i do, then you choose to bring in an example to fortify your stance and i'm not to address that example? if yes, please ban me now.

i'm sure she's an amazing woman drew, i'm sure she is truly, an amazing woman and very, very much in love and active with her faith.

as a catholic, speaking as a catholic ... i still feel it's a grave problem, i don't want my opinion to be that it trumps other serious problems and that it's the only problem ... that's the part of my posts that i feel was being ignorant. i've certainly not changed my view that i feel, as does the catholic church, that it is indeed a grave sin.


----------



## Drew (Apr 9, 2007)

skattabrain said:


> drew, i am NOT attacking you mom. i'm not trying to be anything other than polite. you are asking me why i stand where i do, then you choose to bring in an example to fortify your stance and i'm not to address that example? if yes, please ban me now.
> 
> i'm sure she's an amazing woman drew, i'm sure she is truly, an amazing woman and very, very much in love and active with her faith.
> 
> as a catholic, speaking as a catholic ... i still feel it's a grave problem, i don't want my opinion to be that it trumps other serious problems and that it's the only problem ... that's the part of my posts that i feel was being ignorant. i've certainly not changed my view that i feel, as does the catholic church, that it is indeed a grave sin.



Suggesting my mom should not be allowed to recieve communion simply because she doesn't agree with you is, I think, going a little below the belt. 

I also fail to see what my mom's personal beliefs have to do with your own. The extent of my mother's involvement in this discussion is that there is at least one "good Catholic" who disagrees with you, and that there is actually a sizeable portion of the Catholic church that is not opposed to abortion in ALL instances. 

Saying the church would be right in denying my mother communion is merely "addressing an example," I would say, is in pretty fucking poor taste. If you're going to proceed to question my mom's faith simply because she doesn't happen to share one particular belief with you, then I'm going to politely ask you to fuck yourself.


----------



## skattabrain (Apr 9, 2007)

i said 'politicians', not your mom ... politicians shape and have control over legislation.

sorry drew, i didn't mean to offend you. i was just trying to say that for a catholic, the vaticans stance is the authority. you can have different opinions, but ultimately they are the authority on the matter.

so anyways, please delete my account or ban me or whatever.


----------



## Drew (Apr 9, 2007)

The Vatican is also not infallable - sure, the infallibility of the Vatican is church doctorine, but they've been known to change their mind on occasion, most recently with reversing their stance on contraception - condoms are now endorsed, after all these years of their use being considered a sin, as a legitimate and effective way of combatting the spread of AIDS. You of course see it differently, but there's a fine line between contraception and abortion, especially if a literal read of the Bible suggests a man's seed is solely responsible for conception. 

So, was the Vatican right in banning condom use, but also right in allowing it? Is divine truth relative and dependant upon situation, or does the Vatican occasionally fuck up? If so, then can you really build an argument against abortion based upon the Bible, or if not, then whether or not they're the "authority," if it happens to be that they're wrong, are you within your rights in disagreeing with them?

You're making no sense. I'm not even going to go any further into your first sentence than to say if you think the church can act differently to politicians than it can to rank and file catholics, then you're implicitly saying you think the church is a political, and not religious, body, which brings us back to our original argument.


----------



## Rev2010 (Apr 9, 2007)

Geez Drew, the dude said there are people in the Roman Catholic church that felt those ways, he didn't say he thought that necessarily. Getting touchy man... getting touchy  


Rev.


----------



## Metal Ken (Apr 9, 2007)

Yeah, agreed rev. Just a couple pages ago i was talking about how good and how in stride we were all taking this 



skattabrain said:


> but can a person be both pro-choice and roman catholic and have the roman catholic church be ok with that? i'm not a priest, but i don't think so.



Not saying i know more about your religion than you or anything, but being pro choice simply means you respect other people's decisions? Therefore, by not judging people's choices, you would be following the 'judge not lest ye be judged'?


----------



## Rev2010 (Apr 9, 2007)

Metal Ken said:


> being pro choice simply means you respect other people's decisions? Therefore, by not judging people's choices, you would be following the 'judge not lest ye be judged'?



 Exactly!  


Rev.


----------



## skattabrain (Apr 9, 2007)

drew, i'm not trying change you mind. you asked me how i felt so i told you and i told you why i felt that way.

for me, personally, what the church says may not be easy, might not make sense to me ... but part of me feels like it's part of my faith to put trust in their decision making. man, the church scandals in boston where a re hard thing to get through! some would call this stupidity and that's their right as well as it's a hard concept for people, me at times, to even want to understand.

anyways ... i've tried to make amends for my off-the-cuff, not well thought out posts on friday.



Metal Ken said:


> Yeah, agreed rev. Just a couple pages ago i was talking about how good and how in stride we were all taking this
> 
> 
> 
> Not saying i know more about your religion than you or anything, but being pro choice simply means you respect other people's decisions? Therefore, by not judging people's choices, you would be following the 'judge not lest ye be judged'?



yeah ken, i see your point ... trust me ... i do. it's hard, but where "i believe" and others in the church believe that it's essentially a murder, even if it's not seen by others that way, it's kinda like saying we can't have laws that say it's ok for someone to kill their neighbor ... it's their decision.

but yeah ... we could go on and on for days back and forth regarding this. there's a reason why this is still an issue after so many years ... we won't settle it here. 

i was actually just trying to move on.


----------



## noodles (Apr 9, 2007)

skattabrain said:


> ican a person be both pro-choice and roman catholic and have the roman catholic church be ok with that? i'm not a priest, but i don't think so. there are even several in the church that wish to not allow pro-choice politicians to receive communion. the Roman Catholic Church. i'm sure you've heard of issues regarding ted kennedy and several catholic bishops.



Who cares what the Roman Catholic Church thinks? The lat time I checked, the bible doesn't say anything about meeting the approval of a clerical ruling body. What part of "the only way to the heaven is through (Jesus)" is so difficult to understand? The bible makes it perfectly clear that you only answer to on person, and that is Christ. Anything beyond that is purely religious dogma, and can not, and should not, be judged as the will of God. Step back and look at it from that perspective. It is not your role as a Christian to decide what is sinful and what is not, period.


----------



## skattabrain (Apr 9, 2007)

noodles, i felt the same way for years in my questioning of that authority. Jesus entrusted Peter to act as the rock of his Church, there's a lot more to this of course - http://www.catholic.com/library/Origins_of_Peter_as_Pope.asp 

it stems from here - 


> "Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called &#8216;the rock on which the Church would be built&#8217; Matt. 16:18 with the power of &#8216;loosing and binding in heaven and on earth&#8217; Matt. 16:19?"
> 
> "The Lord said to Peter, &#8216;On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven&#8217;
> 
> Matt. 16:18&#8211;19



just look at the divisions within Christianity regarding this topic alone.


----------



## Drew (Apr 9, 2007)

skattabrain said:


> yeah ken, i see your point ... trust me ... i do. it's hard, but where "i believe" *and others in the church believe* that it's essentially a murder, even if it's not seen by others that way, it's kinda like saying we can't have laws that say it's ok for someone to kill their neighbor ... it's their decision.



Ok, here's where I think I'm finding your arguments objectional. 

You keep saying things like this - bolding mine. What you believe is well and good. However, while there are others in the church who I'm sure agree with you, phrasing it the way you do makes it seem like the church as a whole agrees with you. Now, in some instances the official stance of the Catholic Church may be in line with yours, there's also clearly a LOT of dissent within the church itself. Arguing as you are fails to recognize that dissent, and puts what may be a majority view and is at least a majority view of those with power to issue official statements as not a majority but the ONLY view. 

It's akin to arguing that "what I believe, and what others in America believe, is that Saddam Hussein was harbooring Al-Quaida operatives prior to and subsequent from 9/11, and was in the process of obtaining a nuclear warhead to potentially use against the United States when we invaded." Sure, it's literally true - you (rhetorical you, not necessarily "you" as this is just an example) may believe it, and others in America may agree with you as well, but it's not NEARLY the universal belief you're selling it as. 

It's rhetorical sleight-of-hand and excellent sleight-of-hand at that, but it's not truth. 

Bravo to noodles, incidently, for something that I too feel strongly about and that's getting swept under the rug here - religion is solely between you and god, and sometime it's earthly structures and governing bodies get in the way.


----------



## Metal Ken (Apr 9, 2007)

skattabrain said:


> just look at the divisions within Christianity regarding this topic alone.



I'd state that from the Protestant side, Paul is WAAAAAY more important than peter ever was.


----------



## Drew (Apr 9, 2007)

skattabrain said:


> noodles, i felt the same way for years in my questioning of that authority. Jesus entrusted Peter to act as the rock of his Church, there's a lot more to this of course - http://www.catholic.com/library/Origins_of_Peter_as_Pope.asp
> 
> it stems from here -
> 
> ...




Have you ever read Albert Camus' "The Fall," Greg? I strongly recommend you do. 

The novel is essentially about guilt and judgement, and Jesus comes up briefly as living under unspeakable guilt that the Bible fails entirely to mention - every youth born at approximately the time the "king of the jews" was born was slaugtered per royal decree. Jesus had to have known this growing up, and Camus speculates (in the sort of sympathetic, surprisingly human tones you wouldn't expect of an athiest) of the pain and guilt Jesus must have grown up feeling, watching his aunts mourn for their murdered sons and knowing it was his blood that they were looking for. 

But Camus takes it a step further - at the very end, Jesus tells Peter "you are the rock upon which I will build my church." Peter, the rock upon which the Catholic church was built; the same rock that denied Jesus three times before the cock crowed the morning after his execution. 

Camus asks, did Jesus know? Was this his final dying irony? When he cried to his father asking why he had been abandoned as he gasped his last breaths dying on the cross, was this what he was asking?

You're going to discount it as mere fiction, I'm sure, but it's certainly a haunting question.


----------



## fathead (Apr 9, 2007)

Drew said:


> Bravo to noodles, incidently, for something that I too feel strongly about and that's getting swept under the rug here - religion is solely between you and god, and sometime it's earthly structures and governing bodies get in the way.



Yep, that is an excellent point. And when I see a nun on TV who was "healed" by praying to the Pope I'm a little disturbed. Aren't they supposed to be praying to god?


----------



## skattabrain (Apr 9, 2007)

Drew said:


> Ok, here's where I think I'm finding your arguments objectional.
> 
> You keep saying things like this - bolding mine. What you believe is well and good. However, while there are others in the church who I'm sure agree with you, phrasing it the way you do makes it seem like the church as a whole agrees with you.



understood, i can see how that would piss you and others off, i do. would saying 'vatican' instead 'other catholics' be more fitting?



Drew said:


> It's rhetorical sleight-of-hand and excellent sleight-of-hand at that, but it's not truth.


was not intended, for the record.


----------



## Rev2010 (Apr 9, 2007)

fathead said:


> And when I see a nun on TV who was "healed" by praying to the Pope I'm a little disturbed. Aren't they supposed to be praying to god?



This is one of the things that upsets me about all religions. Look at how high Mohammed is regarded in Islam. Prophets are just that, they are not God itself.


Rev.


----------



## Metal Ken (Apr 9, 2007)

Drew said:


> Have you ever read Albert Camus' "The Fall," Greg? I strongly recommend you do.
> every youth born at approximately the time the "king of the jews" was born was slaugtered per royal decree.



Actually, this may well be founded in truth. there's no historical mention outside the bible that Herod had this ordered. We know many things about him, ie, he had lots of people killed. this much is known. They never once historically mention this event. 

secondly, the fact that there's a hefty ammount of debate if Herod was even ALIVE at the time of jesus' birth, much less able to order and execution.



Rev2010 said:


> This is one of the things that upsets me about all religions. Look at how high Mohammed is regarded in Islam. Prophets are just that, they are not God itself.
> 
> 
> Rev.



Well, that was a big issue with the protestants back in the day as well. "Why are we going through man when jesus says "I am the way , truth, light" et al. Thats why in most protestant churches, there's not much organization above the church level. They believe the pastor is just a spiritual guide, and everything else is you and god.


----------



## ohio_eric (Apr 9, 2007)

OK kids, don't have religion discussions without Pope Eric here. 

Skattabrain is essentially right the Catholic Church doesn't want its memebers to be pro-choice. When I was in Catholic high school it was right in the school's rules that being pro-choice wasn't an option. The Catholic Church could refuse communion to someone whom that was pro-choice. Especially if that person did something like work at an abortion clinic or something similar. Now would they deny communion to someone for being pro-choice. I doubt it. There was a stink with John Kerry in the 2004 elections and as far as I know he was never denied communion. So it's far more dependant on the people making the decisions instead of the Church's dogma.


----------



## Drew (Apr 9, 2007)

Ken, there's little to no historical evidence for anything within the bible. The point of the story isn't its historical validity. 

I guess for me the point is that the fact that Jesus was just a human being like you or I gets glossed over by the church is what I was driving at. Jesus as depicted by Camus is a much more "human" figure than he's ever shown to be by the modern church, who's too busy arguing the divinity of Jesus to bother with the second half - if he's god become human, then while it's important to believe in his divinity, it's also just as important to believe in his humanity. 

It's funny how sometimes its the athiests who have the most powerful things to say about religion... Jesus as Camus depicts him, dying under the weight of crushing guilt, and embittered, with no idea if his great experiment was a failure or not, is a figure with whom I can relate to much more closely than Jesus as this abstract son of God, as the church usually shows him.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Apr 9, 2007)

Metal Ken said:


> I'd state that from the Protestant side, Paul is WAAAAAY more important than peter ever was.



Great point.

I always found it really telling, that according to scripture, when the Apostles wanted to replace Judas, and have an original 12 again, they voted. Voted! As if God appoints by man's decision.

And hence then the Catholic Church.

Meanwhile, according to those same scriptures, here''s this Christian-murdering zealot named Paul, whom GOD chooses to fill that metaphorical vacancy.

Of course, there's much of Paul's writing I disagree with, and you're right, his perspective really influenced protestantism. Much of his conservatism, dogma, and sense of being moreso in the "will of God", as it were.


Drew... I think you were talking Skatta's points a _bit_ personally.  I love you, bro, and I understand where you're coming from.


----------

