re: Apocalypse of Peter
You failed to note that this was rejected as a canonical book of the Bible, and is not considered to be something that could be referenced as doctrine in any church, in fact it was unknown until 1886, when a fragment was discovered in Egypt. It does show the thinking of that sect which produced it. It was written about 100 CE.
BTW Catholic doctrine is not as harsh as you claim (although plenty harsh). The idea is simply that conception is welcomed, not matter how unlikely. Not that every sexual act must be theoretically capable of it.
Not exactly any “sexual act” - “any sexual encounter” would be more accurate. Acts that cannot lead to pregnancy are permitted so long as the encounter ends with PIV sex and conception is not being artificially prevented - and even that might be a little broad. It may be that only ejaculation outside the vagina is prohibited.
Because I was speaking about the early church and the canonical Bible as we know it didn’t exist till about 400 AD.
IOW:
Got it. But my understanding is that what we call “the early church” was more like collection of sects with leaders with significantly different interpretations of this new religion. Peter’s group was one of an unknown number that eventually consolidated, withered, rebelled, or some other thing, and their teachings were not at all uniform. Much of course was lost. Influences from all the different religions boiling in the crucible of the Middle East came and went – really it is fascinating, and I know little about it.
Yes that’s how I took it and also somewhat supportable under the canonical book of Revelation 2,3 where different churches seem to be in far different places spiritually and with teachings that seems somewhat un-united, but all seven acknowledged as Christ’s churches.
Re: abortion
I tried to research what the early church taught about abortion and it’s related issues, but quickly realized that these various views of the early churches have been so coopted and cherry picked by both sides of the abortion debate making discerning what the early churches actually taught about it a momental effort beyond what I was willing to invest in it.
Carl Sagan picked a well-reasoned cutoff: the point in gestation at which a fetus starts exhibiting uniquely human brain activity.
Is there a significant percentage of people who feel that abortion should be legal right up until the moment before the baby is born? In other words, people who really believe it should be up to the pregnant woman and absolutely nobody else?
According to this Pew Research poll of Americans, from 2022, it’s a minority view:
My understanding is that the Catholic church does not ban sex between 70 year olds when no pregnancy is possible. Some might say that a miracle might occur. Sure, and a condom might break. My sister was the result of a broken condom.
I’ve got to say, I’ve never quite understood the criteria for “and then a miracle might occur”. Why is the possibility of a 70-year-old woman miraculously becoming pregnant valid, but the possibility of a gay man becoming pregnant isn’t? Surely, God could make either one happen, and there are plenty of gay couples who, although very surprised, would be quite happy with that outcome.
From a Christian perspective, bear in mind that not only do the Gospels attest to Mary having conceived while a virgin, but the Gospel of Luke also features Mary’s cousin Elizabeth – who was said to have been “very old,” and had been unable to conceive – becoming pregnant, as well (giving birth to a boy who would grow up to be John the Baptist).
So, two examples of “miraculous pregnancies” in the Bible (including one of an old, previously barren woman), but no examples of male pregnancies.
The actual answer to @Chronos’ (rhetorical) question is simpler. As of course most of us know.
Man makes his gods in his own image. And the god(s) those folks could imagine can make a young virgin woman bear a child, or can do the same to an elderly woman. But they can’t make a man pregnant, nor bring forth knowledge of electricity, single-celled organisms, nor metals more advanced than wrought iron.
Religion of any stripe makes a small amount of internally consistent sense within itself, and none whatsoever outside of itself.
That’s why.
See, those are two examples of women who gave birth without enjoying coitus, so that’s how they want all women to bring souls into the world. It’s bad enough some women enjoy the act, but to employ measures that can prevent conception and birth on top of that make the activity that much worse in their eyes.
No, there’s no suggestion in Luke that Elizabeth and Zechariah did not have sexual relations. Rather, she was past child-bearing age, but Zechariah is said to be John’s father.
The Christian bible actually has nothing to say about abortion and, what it does suggest, is that abortion is mostly ok or, at least, nowhere near the big issue it is among Evangelicals today.
It shouldn’t matter what the Bible says about abortion. The United States is not a theocracy. Still, given the certitude of abortion opponents that abortion violates God’s Word, it might come as a surprise that neither the Old Testament nor the New mentions abortion—not one word. - SOURCE
And…
Ten biblical episodes and prophecies provide an unequivocal expression of God’s attitude toward human life, especially the ontological status of “unborn children” and their pregnant mothers-to-be. Brief summaries:
• A pregnant woman who is injured and aborts the fetus warrants financial compensation only (to her husband), suggesting that the fetus is property, not a person (Exodus 21:22-25).
• The gruesome priestly purity test to which a wife accused of adultery must submit will cause her to abort the fetus if she is guilty, indicating that the fetus does not possess a right to life (Numbers 5:11-31).
• God enumerated his punishments for disobedience, including “cursed shall be the fruit of your womb” and “you will eat the fruit of your womb,” directly contradicting sanctity-of-life claims (Deuteronomy 28:18,53).
• Elisha’s prophecy for soon-to-be King Hazael said he would attack the Israelites, burn their cities, crush the heads of their babies and rip open their pregnant women (2 Kings 8:12).
• King Menahem of Israel destroyed Tiphsah (also called Tappuah) and the surrounding towns, killing all residents and ripping open pregnant women with the sword (2 Kings 15:16).
• Isaiah prophesied doom for Babylon, including the murder of unborn children: “They will have no pity on the fruit of the womb” (Isaiah 13:18).
• For worshiping idols, God declared that not one of his people would live, not a man, woman or child (not even babies in arms), again confuting assertions about the sanctity of life (Jeremiah 44:7-8).
• God will punish the Israelites by destroying their unborn children, who will die at birth, or perish in the womb, or never even be conceived (Hosea 9:10-16).
• For rebelling against God, Samaria’s people will be killed, their babies will be dashed to death against the ground, and their pregnant women will be ripped open with a sword (Hosea 13:16).
• Jesus did not express any special concern for unborn children during the anticipated end times: “Woe to pregnant women and those who are nursing” (Matthew 24:19). - SOURCE
And …
Of course, Christians can develop their own faith-based arguments about modern political issues, whether or not the Bible speaks directly to them. But it is important to recognize that although the Bible was written at a time when abortion was practiced, it never directly addresses the issue. - SOURCE
In the words of Inigo Montoya, “I do not think it means what you think it means.”
I’m gonna disagree with using these as proof.
I’ll play devil’s advocate here. The first one is questionable. YOU caused the pregnancy to abort; can’t re-start that pregnancy, so the family deserves some kind of compensation. Husband is head of household; wife is chattel; of course, he’s the one getting the compensation.
The second and third ones basically say that God is OK with death of the unborn as punishment, not if done by humans deliberately. So, the whole “will of God” thing.
The rest of them are saying, in effect, “These despicable things will be / were done - even worse, killing the unborn.” They’re not saying that killing fetuses is OK, they’re saying it’s worse. If you kill all residents in a town, the pregnant ones die, too, and with no life-support, the fetuses die, too; they’re ripping them out to be even more cruel.
I’m not saying that the Bible condemns abortion; I’m saying that these verses are not condoning it, either.
The Bible is very clear about when life begins:
Genesis 2:7
7 The Lord God formed[a] the man from the soil of the ground[b] and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life,[c] and the man became a living being.[d]
It’s the breath that indicates life.
The point is not who gets the compensation - the point is that according to some readings of the original passage, the fetus is clearly not human life, or else the transgressor would be punished by death as called for in that same passage
When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
Nobody is saying that the Bible condones abortion or even that these verses do - but it doesn’t prohibit abortion , either. It doesn’t even mention it. When it does mention related issues, it implies that a fetus is not quite the same as an already born person ( Why not the death penalty for causing a miscarriage - that passage calls for the death penalty if the pregnant woman is killed? ) and suggests that life doesn’t begun until breathing does.
That is the definition of goodsex -
- goodsex — sexual intercourse only for procreation, without any physical pleasure on the part of the woman, and strictly within marriage.
…
That, of course, is sexcrime -
- sexcrime — a sexual immorality, such as fornication, adultery, oral sex, and homosexuality; any sex act that deviates from Party directives to use sex only for government approved procreation.